Official Report 1128KB pdf
Welcome back to today’s meeting of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. Following our suspension, we continue day 5 of our stage 2 consideration of the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
I welcome back to the meeting the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice and her officials. We are also joined 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. We move straight to consideration of amendments.
Before section 31
The next group is on tenancy deposits and guarantors. Amendment 73, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendments 189, 130, 190, 371 to 373, 184, 374 to 377, 195 and 396.
The committee will be delighted to know that amendment 73 is the final amendment that I will speak to. I will leave that hanging, and I will try not to take too long. The amendment raises a serious issue, which is the requirement for foreign students in particular to have a UK-based guarantor. It is a fact that that is not always possible. Sometimes, they cannot come up with a UK-based guarantor.
Amendment 73 would remove the requirement for landlords to require tenants to have a UK-based guarantor who either owns property or earns more than a certain amount of money. The amendment proposes to insert new section 120A(1) into the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 so that Scottish ministers must by regulations provide that, when a guarantor is required, their residential status or annual salary must not be a pre-requisite.
I have mentioned in this committee and the other committee that is dealing with the bill the cross-party group on housing report on student housing and homelessness that came out last September. It found that international students face additional challenges, with guarantor requirements being just one of them. A suggestion in that report was a revised and enhanced guarantor programme to be run by universities. I had correspondence from a student from the University of Aberdeen, who said:
“I do not have a local guarantor, and my parents are old pensioners back in my home country, so I was limited to my choices of housing. I paid some fees to a company that promised to act as my guarantor, but then I got cheated. I barely had less than a month to begin classes, and I was desperate to get a roof over my head. Sometimes I skip my dinner to afford housing rent.”
This is an issue that needs to be dealt with. Amendment 73 might not be the way to do it, or it might be—I shall wait and see.
Ross Greer has an amendment in the group—amendment 189—that suggests that we set up a public body to act as a guarantor for a tenant who is under 26 and is estranged from their family. That is probably the route that we ought to go down. There ought to be a body that people who need it can turn to, and if that is where we get to in this process, that will be a positive outcome. I will decide whether to press amendment 73 on the basis of the debate and what the cabinet secretary says.
Just before I came into the meeting, I had a very quick chat with Universities Scotland—it would have been longer but for the fact that the meeting was due to start. Universities Scotland is alive to all the issues that I have raised. I will be having more and much longer conversations with it, and I am sure that other members will do the same.
As I have said previously, we can probably come to some kind of solution by working together with the sector and the cabinet secretary. We do not want to make matters worse, of course. We need to have enough student housing, but let us accept that some of Scotland’s universities are in a perilous financial state and they are relying on foreign students to bolster their finances. We need to look after those foreign students. We also need to look after UK-based students. Some of them might struggle to get the guarantors that are asked for, so we are not just talking about foreign students.
Do we have a rough idea of the numbers of students who are having that difficulty? You spoke about foreign students, but you also indicated that some UK students might have a similar issue. Do you have any statistics on the size or depth of the problem?
It is a very good question, but I do not have the numbers. I suspect that they are small, but it is very much an issue. We can explore getting the numbers from the sector in the next few weeks. It would be useful to have the figures, but I do not have them. I know from the report of the cross-party group that there is a huge shortfall in accommodation for students in general, but that does not relate to the specific issue that I am talking about.
I am keen to hear what other members have to say and I will decide what to do on the basis of what I hear.
I move amendment 73.
I call Ross Greer to speak to amendment 189 and other amendments in the group.
Unlike Graham Simpson, I am probably going to disappoint everybody by saying that my amendments in the group are not the last ones that I will speak to, but we are getting close to the end of mine.
Together, amendments 189 and 195 would require ministers to establish a scheme for public bodies to act as guarantors for young people who are estranged from their families. That reflects the fact that many young renters, particularly students, have to provide a guarantor when they enter a private tenancy. In practice, the vast majority of the time, for Scotland-domiciled students, or for UK-domiciled students, that role is often fulfilled by a family member—typically a parent.
14:30The scheme would deliver on a recommendation from a piece of research that the Government commissioned on the barriers that are faced by estranged students. That was published in 2022, but it has not yet been actioned. Guarantor requirements are often used in a discriminatory manner but, as long as those requirements exist, that small but vulnerable group of people should be supported. It is a sad reality that, for some young people, moving away from home for the first time for university or another reason is their first opportunity to escape an abusive family or home situation. Guarantor schemes act as a massive barrier to that, and they often allow abusers to maintain a position of power over young people into their adult life. Some universities already operate their own guarantor schemes, which is fantastic, but it is far from being the case that all universities do that.
This is the missing piece of the puzzle in support for estranged young people in particular. We have seen improvements in other areas, such as student support funding, which was campaigned for and won by Councillor Blair Anderson based on his personal experience of abuse and estrangement. He has worked with me on the amendments, which would make a huge difference for a small but really vulnerable group of young people who face a very particular barrier to being able to secure housing and escape from often unsafe home situations.
Amendment 189 would require ministers to set up such a scheme. Amendment 195 is simply a consequential amendment that sets out that the regulations that were relevant to that provision would come under the affirmative procedure.
I call Meghan Gallacher to speak to amendment 130 and other amendments in the group.
Amendment 130 relates to the payment of tenancy deposits. It seeks to include a framework for those payments in the bill so that tenancy deposit regulations must include a provision to ensure that a tenancy deposit is paid by the tenant directly to the scheme administrator. More than anything, it is a probing amendment. It will be helpful to hear where the cabinet secretary sits on including the provision in the bill.
I move on to the amendments in the name of Edward Mountain. Amendment 184 would add a fund for improving or securing the provision of social housing to the list of possible uses for transferred unclaimed deposits. I have a great deal of sympathy with that, as does Edward Mountain. The amendment is about ensuring that we utilise unclaimed deposits in a positive way—in this case, by investing them in social housing, which is under huge pressure. The amendment seeks to find better and more positive solutions for the use of that money. Through discussions with the cabinet secretary, I understand that there are other areas where the money could also be better utilised, so I look forward to hearing her response to amendment 184. Any positive use of that money would be of great benefit to tenants.
I want to go back to the really interesting and important issue of guarantors. It is perhaps not an issue that we can solve through amendments today, but it could certainly be solved in the future. We have spoken a lot about students and young people who are trying to access further and higher education, and we need to be able to look after students who are from here but also students who are from elsewhere in order to utilise our education system. We need to be mindful that they have needs and requirements, including housing, and we must ensure that we recognise those issues throughout the bill.
I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s response and the other contributions on this group of amendments.
I call Maggie Chapman to speak to amendment 190 and other amendments in the group.
My amendment 190 addresses two important issues in relation to deposits. The first is the large deposits that so many landlords now require. As rents have skyrocketed, so have deposits. The average rent for a two-bedroom flat in Lothian is £1,358 a month. As landlords can ask for up to two months at once, a maximum deposit would be around £2,700. That presents a major barrier to securing accommodation for very many renters. As the discretionary housing payments budget is hugely oversubscribed, using that fund to help people to pay overly large deposits is clearly not the best use of a limited pot.
The second part of amendment 190 addresses up-front rent payments. It seeks to make it clear that
“any requirement to pay rent prior to the commencement of a tenancy or to secure ... the tenancy”
in the first place
“is a prohibited requirement.”
I welcome most of the other amendments in the group. Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 130 would require deposits to be paid directly to a deposit protection scheme. That would set up a direct line of communication between tenants and the scheme and make it easier for deposits to be returned. It would also avoid the problems of landlords illegally holding deposits themselves.
Graham Simpson’s amendment 73 would make it easier for people with less connection to the UK to provide a guarantor. We agree with that principle. Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment would make it easier for students to provide a guarantor, which we also support.
Paul McLennan’s amendments in the group are broadly welcome, but I seek an assurance that amendment 374 will not make it harder to create new purposes for which unspent deposits may be used. I would appreciate the cabinet secretary addressing that point in her remarks.
Graham Simpson’s amendment 73 seeks to place restrictions on private landlords’ guarantor requirements, including for purpose-built student accommodation. I recognise the member’s good intention with the amendment, which I think was prompted by concerns in relation to non-UK domiciled students in particular. However, it could inadvertently have negative consequences for those whom it tries to protect.
Although I understand that views on the place of guarantors in the private rented sector vary, the ability to request a suitable guarantor mitigates the risk for the landlord should the tenant not pay the rent or other tenancy-related costs. During our recent engagement with the Scottish Association of Landlords, it raised significant concerns about the impact of the amendment. For many landlords, asking for a suitable UK-based guarantor is part of facilitating a let that might otherwise not go ahead, such as when the tenant does not have a stable income, has a poor credit score or is unable to provide suitable references. Without a guarantor, the tenancy would be too much of a financial risk for many landlords and would simply not go ahead. The amendment might also have an adverse effect on the landlord’s ability to obtain rent guarantee insurance, which is another safeguard that landlords use to manage financial risk.
Imposing restrictions on the type of guarantor that a landlord could use would be likely to result in a reduction in the number of landlords who felt able to let to students and other low-income tenants, making it harder for the latter to access a home in the private rented sector. I am sure that that is not the outcome that Graham Simpson is seeking, but it might be the end result in practice. As I outlined in relation to amendments that were debated in the group on student tenancies, I also have significant concerns about the impact on PBSA and continued investment in that sector.
Many alternative options already exist for tenants who are unable to provide a suitable guarantor, such as payment of rent in advance or local authority and third sector rental guarantee schemes. Given the potential for negative unintended consequences, I ask Mr Simpson not to press amendment 73.
I think that the cabinet secretary recognises the issue; what she has not offered is any kind of solution. I hear what she says, which is that there are other things in place. There might well be things in place—she has said that repeatedly during our consideration of the bill—but they are not working, so we need something new. I know that the cabinet secretary is committed to having lots of discussions, but this matter is very important. Albeit that it affects only a small number of people who pass through the system, they still matter, and they matter to Scotland. Are we able to do something for them?
We do. The only potential difference is that I would consider whether we need to do something new or to ensure that what we have in place is robust and working for all those who require it.
That brings me to Ross Greer’s amendments 189 and 195. I would be grateful if Graham Simpson would allow me to discuss those now, because I will then wrap up and talk about the potential way forward for Mr Greer’s amendments and Mr Simpson’s amendments together.
Ross Greer’s amendments 189 and 195 provide for the establishment of a rent guarantor scheme for estranged young people. I am sympathetic to the outcomes that he seeks to achieve. However, that situation would be complex and it would have ongoing, unknown financial implications. Given that a number of rent guarantor schemes already exist across Scotland, which are operated by universities, local authorities and charities, I am not convinced that setting up a new scheme via a public body would be the best way to deliver increased support for estranged young people.
However, I recognise the concern that Ross Greer has and I see the gaps that he has alluded to in the current set-up. Dealing with that is particularly important, but not only for estranged young people.
I will wait to hear how the cabinet secretary is going to tie all that off before deciding whether to move my amendments in this group. However, on the point about financial uncertainty, it is worth putting on the record that my understanding is that, if every estranged student in Scotland made use of the rent guarantor scheme in a single year and defaulted, the cost would still be less than £10 million. In practice, there will never be a situation in which every estranged young person or student needs the scheme and where they all default at the same time.
Does the cabinet secretary recognise such a level of financial risk is one of dozens of examples of financial risk that the Scottish Government is able to successfully carry every year? In the grand scheme of a Government budget, not even a £10 million cost with not even close to a £10 million risk is perfectly manageable.
The challenge—this explains why I am taking your amendments and Mr Simpson’s together—is that, although those amendments deal with two very important aspects of the student population, we must recognise that guarantor challenges do not apply solely to students and might apply to others. That is why I am keen to see what can be done to strengthen the existing avenues of support.
I think that it was Mr Greer who mentioned that some universities have schemes and others do not, and some local authorities do and others do not. I recognise that, and that is the challenge that we have. The push for a more national answer comes because of that patchwork approach, which is a concern to me and to other ministers.
Mr Simpson mentioned that I have talked on a number of occasions about how I want to improve the system that we have at the moment rather than add new systems. I make no apologies for that because, when we make legislation, we are always in danger of making a system more complex to attempt to solve challenges that we all know are there, rather than trying to make the existing system work better and more efficiently. We sometimes overcomplicate things and have a system that is more difficult for people to find a way through by attempting to sort things in a piecemeal way.
That is why I suggest that there is work to be done before stage 3 to see what can be achieved using the set-ups of universities, charities and local authorities. If Mr Greer or Mr Simpson do not feel that we have gone far enough in that work and if they feel that we still require an additional piece of the jigsaw to make that work, they can bring back amendments at stage 3. I believe that, between me and Graeme Dey, for example, when it comes to students, something can be done to improve the current system. That is my suggestion for a way forward for the international student situation and for estranged young people.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for laying that out. For clarity, is she suggesting that there is a way to legislate to make existing processes and schemes more consistent across the country? For example, could we work together on lodging an amendment at stage 3, or is she suggesting that we should try to improve the current non-legislative approach and that she will attempt to reassure us that there is an adequate non-legislative solution to that ahead of stage 3?
14:45
My preference would be for a non-legislative approach. That is what can be done. The challenge when it comes to guarantors—particularly, but not only, for students—has been recognised for long enough. That non-legislative approach would be my preference. Members might not feel that we can make sufficient progress on those concerns by stage 3 through a non-legislative approach, and they are free to do whatever they wish at stage 3, regardless of what I say. However, it would be my intent to try to work before stage 3 on whether we could take that through in a non-legislative manner.
Amendment 130, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, would ensure that provision is made in regulations that a tenant may pay a tenancy deposit directly to the scheme administrator. I am not opposed to that amendment in principle, but it would be a major policy change that requires careful consideration to ensure that it would be workable and would have no unintended consequences for tenants or landlords.
We already have regulation-making powers via the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 to make any necessary changes in that regard, and we plan to exercise those powers following passage of the bill to reduce the likelihood of deposits being unclaimed. I am happy to commit that, as part of the work, which requires consultation with tenants, landlords and the tenancy deposit schemes, we will explore the model that Ms Gallacher has proposed in her amendment. That is the appropriate way and time to consider the issue further and to ensure that there are no negative impacts or unintended consequences. I ask her not to move amendment 130, on the basis of the reassurances that I have set out on the work that we will undertake.
Amendment 190, in the name of Maggie Chapman, has two parts: restrictions on the payment of advanced rent and the reduction of the maximum tenancy deposit to one month’s rent. On advanced rent, I recognise the concerns that are being raised. The ability to pay advanced rent is currently one of the options that can help to facilitate a let when a tenant is unable to show that they have sufficient income, cannot demonstrate creditworthiness or cannot provide a suitable guarantor. Current requirements restrict that to no more than six months’ rent.
Although I am sympathetic to the outcomes that are being sought, I have concerns that the proposed restrictions could result in landlords choosing not to rent to tenants who are unable to provide a suitable guarantor or demonstrate that they are able to afford the tenancy, but who could have previously afforded to pay rent in advance. That could create an unintended barrier to obtaining accommodation, potentially increasing the risk of homelessness.
Although I am unable to support the amendment as set out, I wish to explore further with Ms Chapman, should she be agreeable, the potential for a reduction in the maximum amount of rent that a landlord could accept as advanced rent, with a view to bringing back an amendment at stage 3 on that issue.
Amendment 190 also seeks to reduce the maximum deposit payment from the equivalent of two months’ rent to one month’s rent. Although I understand that the intention is to reduce barriers to entering the PRS market, that change might have adverse effects for prospective tenants and could also lead to landlords being unwilling to let to certain tenants—for example, those on lower incomes—given an increased risk of recovering rent arrears or property damage at the end of a tenancy.
In addition, the measures in the bill that create rights for tenants to make category 1 changes to a let property—changes that do not require the permission of the landlord—are based on the current deposit maximum of two months. I fully understand Ms Chapman’s intention, and I am supportive of tenants’ rights, as is clearly demonstrated by the Government’s introduction of the package of measures in the bill. I ask Ms Chapman not to move amendment 190. As I have set out, I commit to exploring further restrictions on the payment of advanced rents for stage 3.
I turn to Edward Mountain’s amendment 184. I understand Mr Mountain’s desire to increase the quality and provision of social housing and to tackle the housing emergency. I share that aim. Although I am keen for unclaimed deposits to be put to good use, I do not believe that it is appropriate for those funds—funds that belong to the people who have lived in the private rented sector—to be used for that purpose.
As we set out when the bill was introduced, we intend those funds to be used to help those who are living in the private rented sector, by supporting the provision of advice, assistance and services and by preventing homelessness. I hope that that will achieve the member’s objective of tackling the housing emergency, although in a different way and through the private rented sector itself.
Amendments 374 and 396, in the name of Paul McLennan, respond to concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee regarding the scope of the regulation-making power in section 31 in relation to the use of unclaimed funds. On reflection, I agree with that committee, and those amendments therefore remove the regulation-making power.
In line with the removal of that power, amendment 371 would ensure that unclaimed tenancy deposit funds can be used to support prospective tenants in the private rented sector as well as to support existing tenants. As I have discussed with Mr Greer, that would enable unclaimed funds to be used for projects and activities to support access to the private rented sector. For example, they could be used to support guarantor schemes.
Amendments 372, 373, 375 and 376 make minor and technical changes to the bill. Amendment 377 seeks to provide clarity that the provisions cover existing, and future, private residential tenancies and student tenancies. I ask members to support those amendments to ensure a more robust framework for the use of unclaimed tenancy deposit funds.
In summary, for the reasons given and in light of the assurances that I have offered, I ask Graham Simpson, Ross Greer, Meghan Gallacher, Maggie Chapman and Edward Mountain not to press or move their amendments in this group. If the amendments are pressed or moved, I urge members to reject them but to support the amendments in the name of Paul McLennan.
I call Graham Simpson to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 73.
The cabinet secretary has asked members not to move their amendments in most groups and has done the same here, but we have also seen that she is prepared to work ahead of stage 3 with people who have raised sensible issues. We are all going to be very busy, but that is what we are here to do.
I am pleased that she has offered to work with Maggie Chapman, who raises the serious issue of the sometimes unaffordable size of the deposits that people have to pay. She has also agreed to work with Meghan Gallacher, whose amendment 130 suggests that tenancy deposits should be paid directly to the scheme administrator. That would get round what is, in my view, a bit of a racket, where people can withhold deposits for spurious reasons.
I believe that there is something in amendment 130 and was grateful to hear that the cabinet secretary is willing to work with me ahead of stage 3, because there are potential benefits for tenants and landlords. There will be benefits for tenants because of the reasons that Graham Simpson has outlined, and the administrative burdens on landlords would also be reduced. Does Mr Simpson believe that that is the right way forward and that the amendment would benefit both tenants and landlords?
I think that it would. I can speak from the tenant’s point of view by again relating my experience. I am now on my third rental flat in Edinburgh and have some experience of the market. I remember moving out of one flat and being asked to clean it. My wife was a cleaner—that was her business—and she came in and cleaned the flat, yet the letting agent found specks of dust on a skirting board and tried to withhold money from us. That was the flat that I referred to earlier, which was being put up for sale. The landlady said, “Take what you want. Empty the flat,” so I took what I wanted. That was the deal, so it was absolutely ludicrous that the letting agent was trying to withhold money when the flat was cleaner than it had been when I moved in.
I pushed back and they relented, because they realised that they were not going to win. That must happen all the time—it is a racket. If deposits were paid directly to the scheme administrator, we would end up with a better system. It is very positive that the cabinet secretary has offered to work with Meghan Gallacher.
That brings me to my amendment 73 and Ross Greer’s amendment 189. We have heard that there is a patchwork situation across Scotland. Some universities offer to act as guarantors, while some do not. There are local authority schemes in some areas but not in others. I think that the cabinet secretary recognises that. She said that she is prepared to work to resolve those matters ahead of stage 3, and I am prepared to accept that. If we have sensible discussions about arriving at a better situation—which, I am sure, is what Ross Greer is aiming for, as, indeed, we all are—ahead of stage 3, we can see where we get to. If we are not happy, we can lodge amendments again. However, I hope that we will find a solution.
On that basis, I will not press amendment 73.
Amendment 73, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 183 and 189 not moved.
Amendment 535 moved—[Maggie Chapman].
The question is, that amendment 535 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 535 disagreed to.
Amendments 130 and 407 not moved.
Amendment 536 moved—[Maggie Chapman].
The question is, that amendment 536 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 536 disagreed to.
Amendments 190 and 537 not moved.
Section 31—Use of unclaimed tenancy deposits
15:00Amendments 371 to 373 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.
Amendment 184 not moved.
Does any member object to amendments 374 to 377 being moved en bloc?
I object.
Amendment 374 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville].
The question is, that amendment 374 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
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)
Against
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 1, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 374 agreed to.
Amendments 375 to 377 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.
Section 31, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 32 to 37 agreed to.
After section 37
The next group is on the landlord register. Amendment 417, in the name of Mark Griffin, is grouped with amendments 418, 488, 454, 419, 455, 503, 420 and 421.
Amendment 417 addresses a gap in the current landlord registration framework under the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. As it stands, the act requires registration of those who own and lease residential property, but it does not clearly capture those who rent a property and sublet it to others. The amendment clarifies that individuals who rent or sublease properties—who, in practice, are landlords—must also register. The amendment would ensure that intermediate landlords could no longer operate outside the regulatory regime, thereby avoiding scrutiny, safety checks and compliance obligations.
That is particularly relevant in cases of rent-to-rent schemes, in which someone rents a flat and then re-lets it to others at a profit, without the necessary oversight. Tenants in such arrangements are especially vulnerable. Amendment 417 would strengthen tenant protections, close a legal grey area and ensure consistency and accountability across all rental arrangements.
Amendment 418 seeks to improve the transparency of the landlord register by requiring the inclusion of key property information. Specifically, it would ensure that the register included the rent charged, the size of the property—including the number of bedrooms and floor levels and the floor area—the maximum number of occupants and, where relevant, the current number of occupants for each property.
That would be a crucial step forward, because it would give local authorities a clear picture of what the private rented sector looked like in their area and would enable better enforcement of overcrowding provisions, rent controls and property standards. It would also enhance the value of the landlord register to tenants, who should have the right to know basic details about the homes that they are considering, especially rent levels and occupancy conditions. Amendment 418 would modernise the register and ensure that it reflected the real conditions of the housing market.
Amendment 419 proposes to reduce the duration of a landlord’s registration under the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 from three years to one year. The current three-year cycle allows too much time to pass before registration is reviewed, during which time property standards may deteriorate, landlord circumstances may change or breaches may occur without any follow-up. A yearly cycle would strengthen transparency, keep records current and support better enforcement by local authorities.
Amendment 419 would ensure that information relating to monthly rent was kept up to date and would bring that information into line with the frequency with which landlords outwith rent control areas are currently able to increase monthly rents for private rented tenancies. The amendment is not about increasing bureaucracy; it is about raising standards and closing gaps that allow neglect or non-compliance to persist unchecked for a number of years.
Amendment 420 seeks to impose a new duty on the Scottish ministers to collate and publish rent data drawn from local authority landlord registers. It would require the Scottish ministers to prepare and publish statistics that would be based on the information collated on rent levels in the register, and to break it down by local authority area. That would be a vital step towards transparency and accountability in the housing market, and it would allow local authorities to use the information from an area to consider whether a rent control zone was necessary.
Amendment 421 would introduce a new duty on the Scottish ministers to promote the use of the landlord register to support tenants. It would require the Government to take steps to raise awareness of the register and to ensure that it was actively used to help tenants to understand their rights, to verify landlord registration and to seek redress where necessary. The Scottish Government should use the data gathered in the Scottish landlord register to encourage and support local authorities to communicate with private tenants on their rights via their details as recorded in the register. The amendment would place an obligation on the Scottish Government to ensure that tenants had information about their rights and responsibilities as tenants of rented properties in Scotland.
Amendment 455, which seeks to amend part 8 of the 2004 act, would ensure that the landlord register was accessible and searchable, and it would place obligations on the Scottish Government to enable that. It would require there to be a central, searchable interface, which would make it easier for tenants to access information. In placing that obligation on the Scottish ministers, the amendment would provide consistency and would ensure that local authorities did not face additional expenses. It would support transparency and empower tenants to verify the legitimacy of the landlord or letting agent before signing a lease.
Amendment 488 seeks to improve the landlord registration system significantly, by requiring those who register to provide detailed standardised information about the properties that they let, including information on property classification, number of rooms, heating systems, energy performance certificate—EPC—ratings, past repairs, safety features, accessibility adaptations and known hazards, such as damp or flooding. It also covers compliance with legal standards, such as the repairing standard and electrical installation condition report—EICR—certification, along with clarity on shared spaces and insurance cover.
Amendment 488 would turn the landlord register into a genuinely useful resource for tenants. It would allow councils to make informed choices, it would target enforcement, and it would help national policy makers to address housing quality and climate goals. The data in question would not be burdensome to collect—we are talking about information that responsible landlords already have. The information that would be collected would form part of the information to be shown as part of a home report for any prospective buyer. The proposal supports transparency and balances the need to provide genuinely useful information with the need not to overburden landlords.
Taken as a package, all the amendments in the group speak to what I see as a significant failing of the landlord register as it stands. They provide a real opportunity to amend and update the information that we collect and to gather the data that the committee has spoken about, and has said that we would require, almost every year of the session.
I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to my proposals and—regardless of whether it supports the amendments—hearing about how we can ensure that the landlord register collects the crucial information that we, as legislators, and the Government need in order to make policy decisions and to support tenants to make informed choices about the tenancy agreements that they enter.
I move amendment 417.
Amendment 454 is a simple one: it seeks to devolve to local authorities the ability to set fees for registration with a landlord register. We talk about “the” landlord register, but there are 32 landlord registers—there is a single national letting agent register for Scotland, the responsibility for which sits with the Scottish ministers; the responsibility for landlord registers sits with 32 local authorities. Most members in the room are former councillors, and I am sure that they can think of many occasions on which they chafed at having decisions micromanaged for them by the Scottish Government.
I see this as being a simple matter of policy coherence: if it is the responsibility of the local authority to maintain the register, surely we should give the local authority the ability to set something as basic as the registration fee. We could have political commentary around whatever rate it set it at—I hope that that would not be the case, given how minor an administrative matter this is—but the point is that the responsibility for setting the fee should sit with the elected representatives to whom we have given responsibility for the register. Amendment 454 would devolve that to our colleagues in local government, in line with the Verity house agreement.
Amendment 503 seeks to further reinforce rent controls. As I said previously, we need to ensure that rogue landlords will not chance raising rents above what is legally allowed. That was the rationale for having much higher fines. An additional deterrent would be to remove the landlord from the landlord register if they have flouted rent controls, which is what amendment 503 would enable. I am happy to discuss changes to make the proposal agreeable to the committee, but if we are serious about rent controls, we need to back that with genuine deterrents for landlords who seek to get around them.
Mark Griffin’s amendments would bring more transparency to the private rented sector by requiring more information on the properties let by a landlord to be included in the register. Information on rents would also need to be included, which would support rent controls, as well as broader information for tenants. That is welcome, as it would make the register more accessible to tenants and prospective tenants.
I have a question on amendment 419, which Mark Griffin could perhaps address when he sums up. That amendment would remove landlords from the register unless they re-registered after one year, rather than the current three years. That would improve accessibility for landlords, which we welcome, but there is a question about the burdensome nature of that provision, particularly for local authorities. It would be useful if Mark Griffin could address that issue.
Do any other members wish to speak?
I will speak to amendment 417. At a previous stage 2 committee meeting, I made the comment that the legal definition of “relevant landlord” must be consistent across housing legislation. That is backed by various stakeholders, including Scottish Land & Estates, which is looking for better data collection through a stronger landlord register. I understand that we are still debating where stakeholders are positioned in that regard.
Mark Griffin raised the issue of how the register currently sits in relation to, for example, people who are required to register not as a landlord but as an agent. I think that that undermines the register’s purpose. We need to ensure that all private landlords are responsible individuals who meet letting standards and are accountable to tenants and local authorities.
Amendment 417 relates to previous commentary on the issue. Will the cabinet secretary work with Mark Griffin and other interested MSPs on that matter, alongside the other issues that I raised at a previous committee meeting, ahead of stage 3?
The core purpose of landlord registration is to ensure that those who operate as private landlords are fit and proper persons and that tenants and prospective tenants can be assured of that. Although I understand the thinking behind the amendments in this group and share the view that landlord registration is an important way of driving high standards in the private rented sector, a number of the amendments are not necessary, and many could have unintended consequences that would risk the integrity of the core purpose of registration.
Landlord registration is also a high-volume system that includes more than 200,000 landlords and 350,000 properties. Changes to how a system of that scale operates ought to be clear on the benefits that they would achieve, in order to justify the cost to Government, both national and local, and the increase in administrative burdens for landlords. I strongly believe that any significant changes to how registration systems operate should be informed by consultation with local authorities, landlords and tenants.
15:15I appreciate that some amendments in the group may have their origins in data collection and the use of information for rent controls, as we discussed in group 8. I reiterate the commitment that I made when we discussed that group. We share the view that robust data is needed for that purpose, and I invite members who have lodged amendments in that area to join our planned engagement with local authorities over the coming months.
I turn first to Mark Griffin’s amendment 417. Information about sub-landlords is already entered in the landlord register, as they are classed as persons who act for the landlord, albeit that they are not required to register. Requiring sub-landlords to register would involve a duplication of information on the landlord register and would place an administrative burden on local authorities. In addition, the amendment does not consider the other parts of the 2004 act that would need to be considered in order to cater for sub-landlords in that way.
However, I accept the principle of ensuring that information can be sought from sub-landlords to support rent control. In that respect, Government amendments 303 and 304, which were previously agreed to by the committee, will provide a transparent and effective procedure for local authorities and the Scottish ministers to obtain information from landlords and
“any other person acting as landlord”.
I hope that that reassures Mr Griffin that information will be able to be sought from sub-landlords to support the delivery of rent control, in a proportionate way, through means other than changes to the registration system.
Meghan Gallacher mentioned—and we have previously discussed in committee—SLE’s concerns about those areas. The Minister for Housing met SLE very recently and made an offer for SLE to bring forward its proposed solution to the challenge. Ministers have said that we will look seriously at that before stage 3. Given that that work has not been done, I am not in a position to say whether we would support the solution that is put forward by SLE, but we are certainly cognisant of the issue, both from the committee’s previous discussions and the meetings that the minister has had. I reconfirm that we will work through SLE’s proposed solution before stage 3 and will inform the committee whether the Government wishes to take forward that suggestion. Of course, members will have their own views on SLE’s recommendations.
Amendment 418, which is also in the name of Mark Griffin, would add to the landlord register information about rent and size of property. I agree that information about rent and property size are critical to the operation of rent controls, but Government amendments 303, 304 and 313—all of which were previously agreed to—will allow the Scottish ministers and local authorities to seek that information, and it is not necessary to link that with the operation of the landlord register. To do so would change the purpose of landlord registration and of the register, which currently serves to assess and record whether an individual is a fit and proper person to operate as a landlord. The regime and the digital platform are designed around the person applying to be a landlord; the register is therefore neither intended nor designed to be a tool to record detailed information about each property. We ought not to shift the focus and change the purpose of the landlord register without extensive consultation with councils, landlords and tenants.
Mark Griffin’s amendment 488 would add new types of information that must be included in an application to a local authority to be entered in a register of landlords. I recognise that some of that information is useful for tenants. However, I note that a number of the proposed new data categories are already part of the existing fit-and-proper-person test and are already available to tenants and prospective tenants as part of property adverts or can be requested when a tenancy is taken up. I remain unclear on the potential benefits for tenants of the inclusion of some other categories.
As I have said, the purpose of the landlord register is to record who is a fit and proper person to operate as a landlord, and I do not believe that we should change that purpose without consultation. The register does not currently operate as a register of properties. Information is requested at portfolio level, so increasing the data requirements would not be operationally straightforward. To deliver on amendment 488 would involve a very significant change and would require changes to primary and secondary legislation, information technology systems and local authority practices.
For those reasons, I cannot support the amendments.
Amendment 454, in the name of Ross Greer, would delegate the fee-setting function for landlord registration to local authorities. Setting fees at a national level is transparent, predictable and straightforward for landlords, many of whom operate across local authority boundaries. That predictability is also important for local authorities as they manage their own resources.
As members will be aware, landlord registration is an important part of the protections for private rented sector tenants. Ensuring that the process of applying for registration is as straightforward as possible, anywhere in Scotland, is of material importance.
I am confused about the point about consistency. Local government is not just another set of public bodies; they are 32 governments, and that level of government has been given responsibility for the landlord register. The argument about its being helpful to have consistency across the country somewhat flies in the face of the fact that councils can set their own rate of council tax. Indeed, the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024, which we have just passed in this Parliament, allows them to set their own rate for that levy, and the point that was made in relation to a cruise ship levy is also about local authorities being able to set a rate that is relevant to them.
There is a whole range of other measures whereby local authorities can set a rate—whether for fees, charges, taxes or so on—that suits their local context. I am struggling to see how the Government’s position can be reconciled with the Verity house agreement that this Government signed.
The reasons that I have set out are, in essence, about the impacts on landlords, particularly on smaller landlords who might still be moving over a local authority boundary and therefore operating in two systems. I appreciate where Mr Greer is coming from and the point that is being made. However, as we have moved through the bill, I have been very conscious of the administrative burden particularly on, but not only on, small landlords, as well as the importance of encouraging people into the private rented sector, both as landlords and as investors. That is why, I am afraid to say, Mr Greer and I disagree on the amendment.
The amendment also appears to seek to link fee levels with compliance with other legal requirements. I reassure members that compliance with the law is a key component of the fit and proper person test applied by local authorities, and it is not necessary to link that with the level of fees. A critical consideration is already made in determining whether someone is suitable to be a landlord at all.
Amendment 419, in the name of Mark Griffin, would reduce the registration period to one year from three and require more than 200,000 landlords to re-register and potentially pay an annual registration fee. That would be costly and burdensome for landlords and local authorities. As I am not persuaded by the argument as to why such a significant change to the operation of the registration process is considered necessary, I ask the member not to move amendment 419.
Amendment 455, also in the name of Mark Griffin, would open up access to the data held on landlord registers. As applications include personal and sensitive data, careful consideration of data protection rules would be needed before considering the publishing of such information—if opening up such access would even be possible. Elements of the register are already searchable by the public, including basic details of landlords, letting agents and property addresses, or are available upon application.
The fact that a landlord has been entered on the register confirms that a local authority has made the necessary assessment that they are a fit and proper person, and such a determination means that the landlord has provided the prescribed information needed for such assessment. There is also a wide range of information that tenants are already entitled to request from their landlord. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment.
Amendment 503, in the name of Maggie Chapman, proposes to add new considerations to the fit and proper person test for landlord registration, including where the landlord has tried to raise the rent above the cap, has failed to set the rent in accordance with rent control restrictions, or has been subject to a wrongful termination order. Although I share Ms Chapman’s view that the assessment of suitability to be a landlord is a critical part of the protection for tenants, and that a landlord’s compliance with the law on rent and termination of a tenancy should be part of that assessment, the points that are made in amendment 503 are already covered by section 85(2)(c) of the 2004 act. As such actions would be contraventions of landlord and tenant law, they would already be relevant considerations in the fit and proper person test. By picking out those particular contraventions, we weaken the generality of the existing provision, without adding any particular protections. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment.
Amendment 420, in the name of Mark Griffin, would introduce a requirement to publish statistics on average rent, supported by the information that would be available as a consequence of amendment 418, which I cannot support for the reasons that I have already set out. I would just reflect that the Government’s amendment 328, which has already been agreed to, would enable the processing of information obtained from landlords in connection with rent control for the purposes of publishing aggregate statistics on rent levels. I hope that that reassures the member.
Lastly, I turn to amendment 421, also in the name of Mark Griffin. Of course, it is important that tenants are aware of their rights and are empowered to use them—I share Mr Griffin’s views in that respect. However, as local authorities have existing legal duties to provide advice and assistance to both landlords and tenants on landlord registration and other aspects of landlord and tenant law, I am not clear on the need for a specific statutory requirement to promote the register and, as a result, I cannot support the amendment.
Again, I reassure members that ministers are committed to continuing to raise awareness of tenancy rights and responsibilities, and to see what more can be done about that after the bill is, as I hope, passed by the Parliament. We will seek to work with tenants, landlords and stakeholders to do that in the most effective way.
I want to ask a very quick question, cabinet secretary, as I would like your assurance on a matter. You said that the points made in my amendment 503 are already covered by the 2004 act. Can you assure me that they are indeed covered, given that rent controls are not mentioned in that act, as they did not exist when it was passed? My amendment specifically mentions deviations from rent control levels.
I am content that that is clear and that we are covered. If Ms Chapman can persuade me, before stage 3, that her points are not covered by the 2004 act, I will be happy to look at bringing the amendment back.
I call Mark Griffin to wind up and indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw amendment 417.
I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s support in principle for the intention behind my amendment 417 and the Government’s on-going dialogue and engagement with Scottish Land & Estates to work towards making potential changes at stage 3. I therefore seek permission to withdraw amendment 417 in order to allow those discussions to continue.
On Maggie Chapman’s point about amendment 419, I realise that there would be an increased burden if we were to switch from a three-year to a one-year cycle of registration, but we need to balance outdated rent levels and outdated registrations. Some landlords stop being landlords but do not withdraw from the register; they simply allow their registration to lapse, potentially up to three years later. The concern is that there might be compliance gaps lasting up to three years, and the burden of annual registration needs to be balanced against the live information that could be gathered annually.
My amendments in the group are data driven, and I am reassured by the cabinet secretary’s comment that there will be a separate engagement exercise on data that we will be able to lean on for policy making. I still think that there is a potential gap with regard to the rights of a prospective tenant compared with the rights of a prospective house buyer, who will have far more information at their fingertips to allow them to assess decisions, so I might well come back to that issue at stage 3.
Amendment 417, by agreement, withdrawn.
15:30Amendments 418 and 488 not moved.
Amendment 454 moved—[Ross Greer].
The question is, that amendment 454 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 454 disagreed to.
Amendments 419, 455, 503, 420 and 421 not moved.
At this point, we will take a five-minute break.
15:31 Meeting suspended.Section 38—Private residential tenancies: ending a joint tenancy
Welcome back. The next group is on joint tenancies. Amendment 408, in the name of Katy Clark, is grouped with amendments 378 to 382, 403 and 405. I believe that Mark Griffin will move amendment 408 on Katy Clark’s behalf.
Amendment 408 would allow for
“the interest of the joint tenant”
under a private residential tenancy to
“be assigned to another joint tenant”
before the day on which they provide the landlord a notice outlining that they wish the tenancy to come to an end. However, under those circumstances, the tenancy
“must remain on the same terms as the existing tenancy”,
which would, I hope, allow for more flexibility for people in shared tenancies and, potentially, for easier and smoother transitions between tenancies.
I move amendment 408.
Amendment 408, in the name of Katy Clark, would mean that a new tenant could replace the tenant who had started the process of ending the tenancy and would compel the landlord to enter the tenancy on the same terms as the previous tenancy. Assigning the tenancy on the same terms as the departing tenant, with the landlord’s consent, is the current legal position, and the amendment would not change that. I fully understand the concerns about the impact on other joint tenants who do not wish the tenancy to come to an end, and I, too, want to limit the negative impact on other joint tenants as far as possible. The measures in the bill have been designed to help to do that.
It is very important that people in those circumstances speak to their landlord as soon as possible about their options, which include assigning the tenancy to another person or remaining in the property under a new tenancy. The pre-notice period ensures that there is time for those discussions to take place, and, if it is not possible for tenants to stay, that period enables them to access independent housing support and advice to help them to find suitable alternative accommodation.
I ask Mark Griffin not to press amendment 408 on Katy Clark’s behalf. However, I would welcome further discussions with her on the issue ahead of stage 3 to see whether more needs to be done.
Amendments 378 to 382, in Paul McLennan’s name, will support the operation of the measures in section 38, which will ensure that no joint tenant can be trapped in a tenancy against their will. Amendments 378 and 379 ensure that two months is the minimum pre-notice period and that three months is the maximum pre-notice period. That approach does not change the overall intent, but it is easier to understand than requiring that a 28-day notice to leave be served within a period of 28 days after the expiry of the two-month notice.
The pre-notice period aims to encourage tenants to consider their circumstances and, when possible, discuss their options—assigning the tenancy to another person or remaining in the property—with their landlord. If the final notice was not given within three months and the tenant still wanted to end their tenancy, they would need to start the process again from the beginning.
I have a quick question on amendment 378. Can you explain the rationale for having a maximum pre-notice period of three months? I completely get the two-month minimum, but why have a three-month maximum?
If Maggie Chapman will allow me to further reflect on that, I will come back to her.
Amendment 382 and consequential amendment 403 provide the necessary powers to make regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. That aims at allowing flexibility for the Scottish ministers to amend the pre-notice period, should monitoring indicate that a longer notice period is required.
Under current tenancy provisions, there is no requirement on a joint tenant to inform other joint tenants when they serve the 28-day notice period to their landlord. That means that there is the potential for other joint tenants to be unaware of the exact date on which the tenancy is due to come to an end, which could cause problems for tenants and their landlord. We think that there is a higher risk of that occurring when tenant relationships have broken down. That is the most likely reason why that new mechanism will be used, which is why we have lodged amendment 380 and consequential amendments 381 and 405.
Amendment 380 provides that, following service of the notice to leave, the departing tenant has seven days to provide a copy of the notice to the remaining tenants and a statement to the landlord saying that that has been done.
The Government amendments will provide further security that the process has been followed correctly and that all parties are fully informed of the on-going process and of the date on which the tenancy comes to an end. I therefore ask members to support the amendments in Paul McLennan’s name.
My reflection on Maggie Chapman’s question is that, in essence, the provision in amendment 378 comes down to trying to provide simplicity and clarity on the minimum and maximum periods. It is an attempt to make the position clear for both landlords and tenants.
I call Mark Griffin to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 408.
15:45
I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s comments. I am sure that my colleague Katy Clark will take up her offer to discuss the issue ahead of stage 3. I seek permission to withdraw amendment 408.
Amendment 408, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 378 to 382 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville].
I am required to ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 378 to 382, and I object.
The question is, that amendment 378 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
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)
Against
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 1, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 378 agreed to.
Amendments 379 to 381 agreed to.
The question is, that amendment 382 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
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)
Abstentions
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 0, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 382 agreed to.
Section 38, as amended, agreed to.
After section 38
Amendment 231 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville].
Amendments 231A and 231B not moved.
Amendment 231 agreed to.
Amendments 443, 221, 222, 444 and 249 not moved.
Amendment 385 moved—[Ariane Burgess].
The question is, that amendment 385 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)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Abstentions
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 3, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 385 disagreed to.
Amendment 489 moved—[Ariane Burgess].
The question is, that amendment 489 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 489 disagreed to.
Amendment 538 moved—[Ariane Burgess].
The question is, that amendment 538 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 538 disagreed to.
Amendment 539 moved—[Ariane Burgess].
The question is, that amendment 539 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 539 disagreed to.
Amendments 540 and 541 not moved.
The next group is on succession to tenancies. Amendment 383, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 384, 520 and 521.
I am grateful for the discussions that I have had with members, particularly Mark Griffin and Meghan Gallacher, on the issues raised by the amendments in this group. I also thank Marie Curie for the meetings that we have had to discuss the issues for tenants who are terminally ill and their families that have prompted the amendments in this group. Those issues include concerns about the length of time for which a person must currently have lived in a let property before they can succeed to a tenancy, which is 12 months in both the social and private rented sectors, and the time by which an occupier has to leave a let property after the tenant’s death.
I turn first to amendments 520 and 521, in the name of Meghan Gallacher. Amendment 520 would remove the current 12-month qualifying residence period before partners, members of a tenant’s family or carers are entitled to succeed to a Scottish secure tenancy following the death of the tenant. Amendment 521 would make the same change in relation to private residential tenancies under the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016. Those amendments would remove the qualifying period and would require only that the house must be that person’s only or principal home at the time of the tenant’s death.
In addition, amendments 520 and 521 seek to change the amount of time that a person who could succeed to the tenancy but does not wish to do so must be given before they must leave the property. There is currently a process for that in the social rented sector. Amendment 520 would change the period of time that a tenant in such circumstances has before they must leave the property, raising it from three months to six months. I see the benefits for tenants but would like to further consider the impact of that change in relation to the duty on social landlords to make the best use of their housing stock. Initial discussions with some social landlords have raised some concerns and, in a housing emergency, any delay in being able to allocate a property when an individual has indicated that they do not wish to remain there must be carefully considered. However, I am happy to commit to further exploring that aspect of the amendment with Meghan Gallacher and Marie Curie ahead of stage 3. Should social landlords not make a substantive case, I am content to work with Meghan Gallacher on that area, and I particularly thank her for the conversations that we have had in the past few weeks and for her commitment to moving forward on the issue.
Amendment 521 would make changes to the 2016 act to introduce a similar mechanism for qualifying private tenants who do not wish to succeed to a tenancy. That would mean that private landlords would have to give a tenant who has already automatically succeeded to a private residential tenancy six months’ notice to leave that tenancy if they write to the landlord to say that they do not wish to become the tenant. Existing legislation already provides greater protection for tenants in those circumstances, because qualifying tenants automatically succeed to the tenancy and can stay for as long as they choose. The change is, therefore, unnecessary and would actually reduce existing rights.
Amendments 520 and 521 would also introduce a new mandatory requirement on landlords to give reasonable assistance to the tenant to find alternative accommodation, and I recognise the positive intent behind that. Social landlords are already required to provide housing options advice for those at risk of becoming homeless, so that homelessness is prevented as early as possible, which means that the new requirement is therefore not necessary. Private landlords will not usually have the necessary training or resources to provide housing options advice and assistance to tenants, so I do not think that they are best placed to support a tenant who needs or wishes to move to alternative accommodation. A more effective approach would be to work with Marie Curie and other relevant stakeholders to develop a practice note that would support private landlords whose tenant has a terminal illness or dies. That would be the appropriate resource to encourage landlords to provide tenants with signposting to the organisations that are best placed to provide support and advice in those circumstances.
I understand the concerns raised by the member and Marie Curie that the current qualifying period contributes to housing insecurity and increases distress and trauma for terminally ill people, their families and carers, which can cause profound emotional and practical disruption when they are at their most vulnerable. I have also reflected on previous consideration of the issue, which resulted in the extension, through the Housing (Scotland) Act 2014, of the qualifying period from six to 12 months—a position also taken in the 2016 act. The qualifying residence period for succession must be balanced with the need to make best use of the limited social housing that is available and with the property rights of landlords. On balance, I think that the 12-month qualifying period should be changed and, therefore, ask members to support amendments 383 and 384, in the name of Paul McLennan, which would reduce that qualifying period from 12 to six months.
I ask Meghan Gallacher not to move amendments 520 and 521, in light of Government amendments 383 and 384 and my commitment to explore, at stage 3, a change to the timescale for leaving a property where a succeeding tenant declines the tenancy.
I also reiterate my commitment to progress the development of guidance for private landlords to help them to support terminally ill tenants and their families.
I move amendment 383.
16:00
I care really deeply about this issue. The cabinet secretary and I have had many a conversation about it, and I think that we stand in the same place on succession to secure tenancies. The families of terminally ill people are often their full-time carers and live in the same property to enable them to fulfil their caring duties.
I am in two minds about moving my amendments 520 and 521. I know that I seek to do the right thing. I know, too, that Marie Curie really wants to see this issue resolved in the bill, and that is what we need to move towards. Given the cabinet secretary’s comment that amendment 521 could bring about a reduction in rights, I am concerned that my moving it might lead to potential tenants not being afforded the opportunity to access the relevant support networks.
However, my question for the cabinet secretary would be, why have those rights not been exercised to their full potential? That has perhaps led to the situation in which we find ourselves, where stakeholders do not feel that the right support networks are in place and therefore have to work alongside MSPs to put legislation in place. We have discussed that problem throughout the bill process. I know that the cabinet secretary is keen to work on that aspect, but in my view we must address why that is not already common practice for people who need help and support.
I turn to the social rented sector issues covered in my amendment 520. I might be able to pre-empt members’ concerns, given my experience as a councillor who sat on housing committees in North Lanarkshire. I will not apologise for highlighting that families need adequate time to get themselves together after they lose a loved one. The general point that I seek to make through these amendments is that, although social landlords might be within their rights to reuse properties and allocate them to other tenants, that is usually not done in the right way, and it often happens within a short period of time. I have certainly had casework where tenants have been expected to move out of a property a matter of weeks after the death of their loved one, a period in which not only must they start to move through the grieving period but they must box up the deceased person’s possessions and ensure that they themselves have somewhere to go. That is the reason for my lodging these amendments.
I thank Meghan Gallacher for the conversations that we have had, in particular in the past couple of days but also prior to that. As I said earlier, the only reason for my not supporting amendment 520 at this point is that, as a Government minister, I feel that it is important to give landlords the opportunity to come forward, should they have grave concerns about the proposals. If they do not, or do not do so in a way that convinces me or Ms Gallacher, I will be happy to support her amendment at stage 3. I have my own views about whether I will be convinced, but I want to give people the opportunity to come forward and express their concerns. However, I am very sympathetic to where Meghan Gallacher is coming from with her amendments.
I fully understand that. What the cabinet secretary has said reflects our conversations on these issues.
I feel that if I do not move my amendments now, that would represent a missed opportunity. However, at the same time, I understand the need for consultation—I have called on the Scottish Government to do that many times myself, and it needs to happen before important decisions are taken. I have a difficult choice to make, but I also understand where the cabinet secretary is coming from.
Convener, I might take a minute or two to reflect on my amendments so that when you call them I will be able to say whether I wish to move them.
As no other members wish to speak, I invite the cabinet secretary to wind up.
I again thank all the members with whom I have had discussions about the amendments in this group. Those discussions have been a good example of the kind of discussions that we can have on exceptionally sensitive issues. We all come from the same starting point, which is that we want to be able to support people with a terminal illness and their loved ones in the most difficult of circumstances.
This group of amendments is an example of our ability to make a real difference to people, which does not arise in many cases. I thank Marie Curie for the intensive work that it has done directly with my officials to provide case studies for me to examine to enable me to identify where there are flaws or gaps in the law, or where there is an issue with tenants not understanding their rights or landlords not understanding their obligations. That has been very helpful as we have sought to make progress on the issue.
I believe that changes need to be made to the amendments that Meghan Gallacher has lodged, for the reasons that I have explained, but I share her intent of providing the best possible assistance to people who, along with their loved ones, might be in the worst of circumstances.
Amendment 383 agreed to.
Amendment 384 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.
Amendments 520 and 521 not moved.
Section 39—Social landlords: delivery of notices etc
Amendments 456 and 423 not moved.
Section 39 agreed to.
Section 40 agreed to.
After section 40
Amendments 422 and 247 not moved.
Amendment 273 moved—[Maggie Chapman].
The question is, that amendment 273 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 273 disagreed to.
Amendment 248 not moved.
Amendment 274 moved—[Maggie Chapman].
The question is, that amendment 274 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 274 disagreed to.
Amendment 457 not moved.
The next group of amendments is on long leases. Amendment 232, in the name of Ross Greer, is grouped with amendments 232A and 234 to 236.
I lodged amendments 232 and 232A and the other amendments in this group because long leases are a matter of unfinished business for the Parliament. Long leases are leases that, at their start, were of more than 175 years and where the rent is nominal, at £100 or less per year, which is sometimes known as peppercorn rent. Long leases put tenants in a position of de facto ownership, despite not having the status of legal ownership over the property or the rights that flow from that. Therefore, long lease tenants are deprived of the full enjoyment of the property through an ability to sell it or pass it on to a loved one, for example.
This set of amendments on long lease reforms has arisen from casework, because, due to a historical anomaly, the remaining long leases in Scotland are heavily concentrated in the three towns area of North Ayrshire in my region—the towns being Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston. The situation remains even after the Long Leases (Scotland) Act 2012 of this Parliament sought to address the issue. The 2012 act converted some but not all residential long leases into ownership. My amendments in this group seek to extend the ability to obtain ownership rights to long lease tenants who did not benefit from the 2012 act, which is those whose long lease had less than a century to run, as of 2015.
Amendments 232, 232A, 234, 235 and 236 would establish a scheme by which qualifying long lease rights can be converted into ownership rights. The amendments seek to address the comparative disadvantage that is currently faced by long lease tenants whose tenancies were not covered under the 2012 act because there was less than a century until their expiration—we can all acknowledge that a century is an awfully long time to deprive somebody of such rights.
Amendment 232 sets out a definition for a qualifying lease along the lines of the 2012 act. However, in this case, it would be a lease that has more than 50 years before it expires. Amendment 232A would give the committee and the Parliament the opportunity to go further and to define it as a lease that has more than five years before it expires. If amendment 232A was agreed to, we would, by and large, finally get rid of long leases in Scotland—I say “by and large” because there is no element of compulsion in here, which is worth emphasising.
Amendment 234 would establish long lease tenants’ rights to apply for the conversion of lease rights into ownership rights, and it would give ministers the power to regulate for the criteria on which an application should be accepted or refused. Again, the provisions are all very similar to the 2012 act but would be extended further to the group who were not covered at that time.
Amendment 235 would establish the process for long lease rights to be converted into ownership rights, and amendment 236 would establish the process for the former landlord to request a compensation payment, with ministers regulating for the specifics of that process as well.
By and large, the amendments simply replicate the 2012 act to cover the group of long lease tenants who were not covered at that point because their leases still had a century left to run. If members agree to that in principle, which I hope they do, I would be keen for us to go as far as possible and to apply the provisions to all long leases that have more than five years left. That would get us pretty close to the point of getting rid of this very odd historical anachronism. However, by default, voting for amendment 232 would agree to the measure in principle and allow us to make progress and, I believe, cover the majority of those who still have a long lease in Scotland by applying the provisions to all those who have more than 50 years before their lease expires.
I move amendments 232 and 232A.
Amendments 232 to 236 aim to allow tenants to apply to their landlord to have the long lease of their rented property converted to ownership. Long leases in this context are leases that have been granted over property for more than 175 years.
The Scottish Parliament considered the issue in 2012 and passed legislation that converted long leases into outright ownership, where the remaining term of the lease was at least 100 years on a specified date. Amendments 232 to 236 would capture long leases that were not automatically converted into ownership by that legislation, provided that there are at least 50 years left to run on the lease. There is a separate amendment to reduce that to five years.
16:15The issue was not discussed during stage 1 evidence or with stakeholders more widely. The 2012 legislation followed from a Scottish Law Commission report on the conversion of long leases. Research undertaken by the SLC, the views of stakeholders and human rights considerations all played an important part in the decision to choose the 100-year period. It was concluded that, when the remaining term of the lease drops below 100 years, the landlord can be considered to have an economic interest in the property, with such interest becoming more significant the nearer the lease is to its termination.
Accordingly, the then Scottish Government took the view that converting a long lease to ownership where there was a minimum of 100 years left to run in the lease would strike the right balance and ensure that everyone’s interests were protected, including the property rights of landlords under article 1, protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights. I note that no new research or evidence has been presented to the Parliament or the Scottish Government to justify the changes that Mr Greer has proposed.
I understand entirely the A1P1 considerations, which come up an awful lot in the Parliament, and rightly so. However, I am interested to understand the considerations that led to 100 years being set as the threshold—I presume that the decision was based on case law. However, my understanding is that it was a somewhat arbitrary number on the basis of taking a very cautious approach, given that the 2012 act was the first time that the inequality of long leases had been addressed. Given that there have been no court proceedings that have challenged the act—or any individual cases that were successful—my suggestion is that the Government’s position that 100 years is necessary to maintain the A1P1 rights of landlords is based on an incredibly risk-averse assumption rather than on case law from elsewhere, for example.
I appreciate that the member’s position is based on constituency cases, which he mentioned in his opening remarks. As I have stated, which I think is exceptionally important, the work that was undertaken by the SLC and the views of stakeholders, as well as the human rights considerations, led to the 100-year period being chosen. I am afraid that, despite the constituency cases that Mr Greer raised with me in the run-up to today’s meeting, I still feel that the correct balance was reached as a result of the work that was undertaken for the 2012 legislation.
There are a number of policy gaps in the amendments and a lot of the detail about how the provisions that they would introduce would work would be left to regulations. Leaving aside the fact that the regulation-making powers are unlikely to be sufficient in that regard, I wish to make a point about the level of compensatory payments to be made to the landlord by the tenant. The calculation to determine the amount to be paid would be set out in regulations but, given what I have said about human rights considerations, the level of the payments is likely to be high, and it would be significantly higher the closer the lease is to the termination date. That might deter tenants from applying to convert their lease, thereby undermining what appears to be the principal aim of Mr Greer’s amendments.
Finally, I point out that there is currently nothing in law that prevents a tenant from approaching their landlord to privately arrange the conversion of their lease to ownership in the circumstances that the amendments seek to address. I therefore urge the member not to press the amendments, and, should he do so, I ask the committee not to support them.
I understand entirely the cabinet secretary’s position, although I suggest that the Scottish Government often takes a risk-averse approach to the extreme in A1P1 cases. I am happy not to press the amendments, if the Government can commit to some kind of consideration and review of whether there is justification for expanding the provisions of the 2012 act to those whose leases were not covered at the time—those whose lease was more than a century at the time and is over 50 years at this point. Does the Government have any interest in considering the situation of those who were missed by the 2012 act, or is that not an area that it wishes to explore?
As I have said to committee members and other interested parties, I am always happy to have another meeting so that members can try to persuade me further, even though they have not managed to get Government support in the run-up to stage 3. If Mr Greer would like one more try at that in the run-up to stage 3, we can do that, but I suggest that his chances of success are low. However, I will never say never and, if he would like to take me up on the invitation, I would be happy to have that discussion.
Based on the work that I have undertaken for the bill, I am content with the Government’s current position, and I do not feel that we will change our mind on that in the run-up to stage 3. I must be honest with Mr Greer. I promise to meet many people and I genuinely want to work with him, but it is important that I am realistic about his chances of persuading the Government, although I do not know about his chances of persuading other members.
I call Ross Greer to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 232A.
I have pretty much covered the issue already. Although I understand the Government’s reticence around issues relating to A1P1 rights, I emphasise that my understanding is that the threshold of a century that was set by the 2012 act was, ultimately, an arbitrary one that was based on a particularly cautious interpretation of the legal challenges that might arise. Those legal challenges did not arise, and so the threshold is one of those odd historical anomalies and injustices that needs to be rectified. It particularly affects my constituents in the three towns in North Ayrshire, but it also affects a scattering of people elsewhere in Scotland.
Although I entirely understand the Government’s approach, and I am therefore happy not to press amendment 232A, I will press amendment 232, because I think that the 50-year threshold is entirely defensible on the basis of balancing the landlord’s A1P1 rights with the rights of the long-lease renter or tenant.
To clarify, do you want to withdraw amendment 232A?
That is correct.
Amendment 232A, by agreement, withdrawn.
The question is, that amendment 232 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 232 disagreed to.
Amendments 234 to 236 not moved.
Section 46—New pitch fees: considerations
The next grouping is on mobile homes. Amendment 386, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 21 to 23.
We are committed to making progress on the issues that have been raised by mobile home site residents, and I support the work that Murdo Fraser has been undertaking with them. The Minister for Housing has taken action following Mr Fraser’s members’ business debate in February, including by writing to Ofgem, to the UK Minister for Services, Small Business and Exports, and to local authorities. I hope that the post-implementation review of mobile home site licensing that is to be carried out before the end of this parliamentary session will address some systemic issues.
Amendment 386, in the name of Paul McLennan, will align the definition of the consumer prices index that is used in the mobile homes provisions in the bill with that used in the rent control provisions. The new definition does not change the substance of what was in the previous definition.
I fully support the principle of amendments 21 and 23 on adaptations, that disabled people should be supported regardless of their housing circumstances. However, the amendments are not necessary, as there is already provision in law for that purpose. The Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 established arrangements for the delivery of support for disabled people who require adaptations and who either own or privately rent their homes. Mobile homes, caravans and park homes are not covered by that legislation, but all local authorities have a duty to ensure that the needs of disabled or chronically ill residents are met, whatever their housing circumstances, and to offer support under the provisions of the Chronically Sick And Disabled Persons (Scotland) Act 1972 and the Equality Act 2010.
Since the members’ business debate, my officials have had further engagement with some local authorities that shows that there are differing levels of understanding of the basis of supporting park home residents. The Minister for Housing wrote to council leaders and heads of housing on 22 April to confirm the basis for adaptation of mobile homes in housing legislation and the other legislation that I have mentioned.
Furthermore, we plan to undertake a review of the current housing adaptation system that will make recommendations on how best to improve and streamline the system and better target resources. The scope of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 will be part of the review, so issues relating to adaptations to park and mobile homes will be considered. I have already referred to the review in previous groups.
Amendment 22 is intended to improve access to justice for residents of mobile homes by moving cases from the courts to the First-tier Tribunal. I support the principle of the amendment, but lodging it at this point is premature. The Mobile Homes Act 1983 is complex. It covers Gypsy Traveller sites, so there are equality considerations. Time is needed for effective consultation and policy making to identify how the rights and responsibilities of residents and site owners can best be upheld. After discussion with Mr Fraser, the Minister for Housing and I are therefore committing to consult on the policy that amendment 22 would implement, and we aim to do so before the end of the current parliamentary session, resources permitting.
I ask Murdo Fraser not to move his amendments in this group. If amendments 21 to 23 are moved, I urge the committee not to support them.
I move amendment 386.
As this is the first time that I have spoken on the bill, I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I own a private rented property in Edinburgh, from which I get some rental income, although that is not particularly relevant to this group of amendments. I am also a member of the Law Society of Scotland, although I am not currently practising.
The cabinet secretary referred to the background in relation to park homes. In February, I hosted a members’ business debate on that issue, which I know is of interest to a wide range of members. Indeed, in a previous parliamentary session, Colin Beattie MSP chaired a cross-party group on park homes that identified some of the issues.
Park homes are a popular and growing segment of housing, in particular for retirees and people who are looking to downsize. However, it is clear that the legislative framework around park homes is not fit for purpose. We have too many examples, which I, and others, highlighted in the members’ business debate, of park home residents being at the mercy of unscrupulous owners of park home developments. Much more needs to be done to improve the legislative framework.
As the cabinet secretary said, I have had good engagement with the Minister for Housing on the issue. I am not seeking for my amendments to provide a comprehensive package of reform—that will take a lot longer—but to deal with some of the more egregious issues that have arisen that could be resolved a lot more quickly.
As the cabinet secretary said, amendment 21 deals with adaptations. Park home residents, many of whom might be elderly or disabled, are not eligible—or, in many cases, they are being told that they are not eligible—for grants for adaptations to put in such things as ramps for wheelchairs, wet rooms or to make other changes to their property that would normally be funded through local authority grants if they were living in what is deemed to be a permanent home. However, even though park homes might be permanent residences, because they do not meet the definition of a permanent structure, councils are telling people who live in them that they are not eligible for assistance.
16:30I understand what the cabinet secretary said about the rights of councils; the issue is that, although that might be what the Government says, it is not what some councils are telling us. In fact, I can cite a very recent example. A segment on STV News at the beginning of this month highlighted concerns in the Perth and Kinross area around park homes, in response to which Perth and Kinross Council issued a statement that it was very sympathetic to the demand for the installation of ramps or wet rooms as adaptations; however, and this is a direct quote:
“under the terms of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 grants can only be awarded to permanent structures so, unfortunately, even when residents have permission to stay in a park home all year round they are not eligible for this funding. We appreciate how frustrating this situation is for homeowners but there is no scope for us to award discretionary grants under current legislation.”
The Government might be saying that local authorities can give that money, but that is not what local authorities are saying, so we have a problem.
My amendment 21 is not intended to be prescriptive in its form. It simply requires ministers to bring forward regulations that would require assistance to be offered to people living in park homes or similar properties in the same fashion as would be offered to someone living in a more permanent structure. It strikes me as a very reasonable amendment, given what the cabinet secretary has said.
I might be minded not to move it, if we could get some reassurance before stage 3 that local authorities are doing what the Government is telling them to do. Does the cabinet secretary want to intervene?
I thank Mr Fraser for giving me the opportunity to come back in. The case that he raises is a concern. Members who have sat through numerous groups of amendments to the bill know that we have had several discussions about the current law, but my speaking notes have never just said that the current law is there and therefore there is not a problem. The current law is there, but it is not working for the residents, which is clearly an issue in this area.
I mentioned that the Minister for Housing had written to all councils, but it is important that we seek further reassurance—both for Mr Fraser and, importantly, for the residents who have raised these issues—hear the feedback on the minister’s letter and see whether further work is being done on the matter. I recognise the concern that Murdo Fraser rightly raises, and the quote from the council shows, if it needed to be shown, that more work needs to be done.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that intervention and for that clarification.
Amendment 23 is consequential to amendment 21. Amendment 22 deals with a separate issue, which is the resolution of disputes. Again, I have had a great deal of correspondence on the issue from park home owners. At the present time, the only way that they can resolve a dispute with the owner of the park is by resort to the sheriff court, which is extremely unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. The cost of going to the sheriff court is substantial. Legal advice is absolutely essential. It is extremely difficult to find any lawyer anywhere in Scotland with the required degree of expertise in the law around park homes. As I am sure that members of the committee are aware from work elsewhere, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to obtain civil legal aid to pursue such cases. Therefore, although the remedy might be to go to the sheriff court, in practice that remedy is almost worthless because of the barriers that are put in the way.
Amendment 22 proposes, as an alternative route, to shift the resolution of disputes from the sheriff court to the First-tier Tribunal, bringing it into line with other issues that are dealt with in the housing arena, including the regulation of the private rented sector, which was moved to the housing tribunal in 2017, if I recall correctly. That would provide a much lower-cost and quicker resolution route, without the need to involve lawyers or apply for legal aid.
I listened with great interest to what the cabinet secretary had to say about the process of consultation. My concern is that that will take a substantial period. Even if the consultation proceeds by the end of this parliamentary session, we will need to look for a new legislative vehicle in the next session for it to be done. With the best will in the world, it would take a minimum of three years, whereas we have an alternative approach now.
I appreciate that there is more work to be done, but I hope that the committee will consider supporting my amendments, which would give the Government some opportunity to come back before stage 3, perhaps with amended wording. That would get the message across that time is of the essence. Many of the people about whom we are talking are elderly. A period of three years to try to reach a resolution might be more time than they have left on this planet. It is very unfair to leave them without effective remedies for the situation that they are in.
As no other members wish to speak, I call the cabinet secretary to wind up.
I will not say any more about Murdo Fraser’s amendments that I spoke about earlier, but on amendment 22, I appreciate his point about the time that it might take if the issue moves forward to further consultation, further work and a new legislative vehicle. I cannot deny any of that.
On two issues, specialist work needs to be done. The Mobile Homes Act 1983 covers Gypsy Traveller sites. In particular, where those are socially provided, we will want to consider what is best to ensure that the rights of that community are upheld and strengthened as appropriate. I appreciate that Mr Fraser comes with particular cases from his constituency work, but that other aspect is important to recognise.
Furthermore, it might not be appropriate for all case types under the 1983 act to move to the tribunal. For example, cases that relate to evictions from social housing are dealt with by the courts, so we will need to consider whether the same should apply to evictions under the 1983 act.
As I said, I am very sympathetic to where Murdo Fraser is coming from, but it is a complex area of legislation, particularly because of the equalities issues and the read-across to other housing legislation. Therefore, I am still unable to support amendment 22.
Amendment 386 agreed to.
Section 46, as amended, agreed to.
Section 47 agreed to.
After section 47
Amendment 21 not moved.
Amendment 22 moved—[Murdo Fraser].
The question is, that amendment 22 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 22 agreed to.
Amendment 254 moved—[Ariane Burgess].
The question is, that amendment 254 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 254 disagreed to.
The next group is on social housing regulation. Amendment 458, in the name of Evelyn Tweed, is grouped with amendments 271 and 272.
I declare that I am a member of Loreburn Housing Association and a former housing professional.
My amendment 458 introduces a clear and independent right of appeal against decisions made by the Scottish Housing Regulator. It builds on the current appeals process and brings fairness, transparency and accountability to housing regulation in Scotland. It moves the existing right of appeal for some decisions from the Court of Session to the First-tier Tribunal and introduces a new right of appeal to the tribunal on a range of decisions that were previously considered internally by the regulator.
The new appeal process will cover a wide range of decisions, including those on registration, enforcement notices, financial management directions and the appointment or removal of individuals in key roles. Affected parties will be entitled to request an internal review and, if necessary, to escalate their case to the First-tier Tribunal, adding independent oversight.
The amendment has received strong backing from sector bodies, including the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, the Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations and Share. The regulator has welcomed the development of an appeals process that is appropriate, objective and independent. I urge members to support the amendment.
I move amendment 458.
Amendment 271 would require the Scottish Housing Regulator to publish a monthly dashboard of information about social housing tenants in Scotland—which means continuing to publish the information that it has previously made available as its quarterly Covid-19 dashboard. The information that was contained in that dashboard was incredibly useful during the emergency conditions of the pandemic. As we are now a year into a housing emergency, having up-to-date information on progress and on the effects on tenants in the social sector would be similarly invaluable.
From the Government’s biannual reporting on the emergency rent control legislation, and from the extensive discussions that we have had at committee on the adequacy of the data provided by the private rental sector and the landlord register, it is clear that, in order to take action to keep rent affordable, we must have access to up-to-date and accurate data. While we improve the depth and breadth of the information that is available on the private sector, it is important that the quality and amount of information on the social sector cannot be allowed to slip below what is necessary and what we have previously had access to.
I note that the SFHA has highlighted a couple of concerns with the amendment, and I acknowledge its point that monthly updates would place a high burden of resource on smaller housing associations. For that reason, I am content not to move it at this time and to work with the sector and the Government to ensure the quality and depth of data required for the social housing sector at future stages of the bill. It would be unfortunate if we lost the level of information that we had during the pandemic and no longer collected or published it.
Amendment 272 is designed to allow for an opportunity to push for a more robust approach from the Scottish Housing Regulator on social housing providers setting out and measuring standards. It would strengthen the regulator’s role in providing guidance; it would require the regulator to issue guidance on the competence and conduct of individuals involved in the provision of services in connection with the management of social housing.
The Scottish Housing Regulator can already set out standards that housing organisations need to achieve. In the existing regulatory framework, standard 6 states:
“The governing body and senior officers have the skills and knowledge they need to be effective.”
That is a fairly vague statement, and there is little guidance on how that should be measured. Further, it applies only to RSLs, not to local authority staff. The guidance required by my amendment 272 would be much more robust and could include provisions around the knowledge, skills, experience and conduct of people holding certain positions within the social housing sector. The amendment includes a requirement to review the guidance at least once every five years and a requirement for the regulator to consult whoever they consider appropriate when developing or revising the guidance.
16:45
I support amendment 458 in the name of Evelyn Tweed, which creates an independent appeals process for decisions by the Scottish Housing Regulator. Although the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 established a statutory right of appeal to the Court of Session for specific decisions of the regulator, it did not establish any wider specific statutory right of appeal against its regulatory decisions. The current non-statutory appeals process that the regulator developed therefore goes as far as the regulator can legally go. Evelyn Tweed’s amendment establishes an effective framework for the review and independent appeal of regulatory decisions, and I welcome that it has received support from the sector.
I understand the intentions behind Mark Griffin’s amendment 271, which would require the Scottish Housing Regulator to collect and publish information. However, the regulator already collects that information for all social landlords in its annual return on the charter. The regulator is required to report annually on performance against the charter and does so as part of its national report on the charter. The regulator also has on its website a facility where landlord performance can be compared and data tables that make all the information publicly accessible.
Asking social landlords to provide information to the regulator monthly and for the regulator to publish that information in addition to what it already does would be highly demanding with regard to time and resource and would impact on both social landlords and the regulator. As that information is already collected and published annually, I ask Mark Griffin not to move the amendment.
I understand Mark Griffin’s intention in amendment 272 to introduce a requirement on the Scottish Housing Regulator to publish
“guidance on the competence and conduct of individuals involved in the provision of services in connection with the management of social housing.”
However, work by the Chartered Institute for Housing in Scotland—the professional body for housing—is already under way, which demonstrates that it should be a matter for the sector itself to determine. The CIH should lead the work, with input from other sector organisations such as the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, the Association for Local Authority Chief Housing Officers, the wider sector and, of course, the Government.
For transparency, I note that, albeit some time ago, I worked for the CIH and was a member of it for many years. I commit the Scottish Government to being an active partner in that work and therefore ask Mr Griffin not to move amendment 272.
I call Evelyn Tweed to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 458.
I will just press the amendment.
Amendment 458 agreed to.
That brings us nicely to the end of our work for today. I thank members, the cabinet secretary and her officials. We will continue our consideration of the Housing (Scotland) Bill at stage 2 on Thursday afternoon at 1 pm.
Meeting closed at 16:47.