Chamber and committees

There is an issue about community understanding of what NPF4 is. We have discussed a lot the idea of engaging with communities directly so that they know that they can advocate. At the same time, they know their areas, as you rightly said. However, there is still a lack of understanding of what NPF4 means and how people can get involved in that process.

Kevin, from a developer point of view—we have communities, but we also have developers—when it comes to local place plans, is the guidance creating a confused landscape?

My comments relate to a wider issue; they are on the letter that we received from Mary McIntosh. She is from my area, and she was present during the evidence sessions regarding this matter. If we approve the revised statement today, does that mean that we will have to send her a response? My concern is that she has a bee in her bonnet about this issue.

I highlight the concerns that were raised in the Social Justice and Social Security Committee on amendment 230. We were considering Bob Doris’s amendment as part of a series of other amendments lodged by other colleagues on that committee, and we had to wait for the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee before we were able to hear the debate surrounding it.

I fully support the amendment, but I have to question the process, given that it was not considered as part of the homelessness prevention work that was undertaken by the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. That is more of a reflective comment than anything else, but I am glad that we are here now and are able to discuss it—although it has been a very long time coming, and the direction that the Parliament has taken has not been good for stakeholders’ morale, as they have had to wait for so long before we have been able to discuss the amendment today.

Hazel, will you touch on local place plans in the round?

I move on to the interpretation of NPF4—specifically, the never-ending debate on 20-minute neighbourhoods and the stifling impact that those can have on potential development in remote and rural areas. Are 20-minute neighbourhoods achievable? Why is development being stifled, and how might that be overcome?

Hazel or Esme, does either of you have any comments on 20-minute neighbourhoods?

I understand and am pleased to hear that that work is moving in the right direction. However, will the cabinet secretary please keep the committee updated on the progress that is being made? When it comes to the housing to 2040 board, we are not always in receipt of information, which can cause a lot of frustration to members who are trying to find out where we are, the progress that is being made and the outcomes and objectives that are coming from the Scottish Government and the board.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Following on from what Willie Rennie said, the housing emergency and the introduction of emergency legislation through the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Act 2022 highlighted a significant gap in the Government’s understanding of the private rented sector. Given that that sector provides for approximately 13.5 per cent of Scotland’s population, its role in the housing system is not only substantial; it is indispensable. Had a comprehensive strategy been implemented earlier, it is possible that Scotland could have avoided a lot of the housing shortages that we are seeing today. Although I understand why Willie Rennie is wary of bringing in another strategy, his amendments 1 and 2 come from the right place. It is an area that we have to look at as part of this housing bill.

I will touch on amendments 135 and 135A. The charter proposed in amendment 135 would offer a clear and accessible framework to support both landlords and tenants. I hope that the amendment itself would serve as a straightforward tool for communicating key information. I do not want to be overprescriptive when it comes to implementing a charter. The reason for the amendment is to make sure that the rights of the private rented sector are being upheld. The important balance between the sector and tenants would be met through the charter.

Amendment 135A would change when the charter would be published, from 12 months to six months after the proposed new section came into force. I do not intend to move amendments 135 and 135A today, but I would be grateful to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say on the introduction of a charter. I believe that something of this nature—whether it is a strategy, a charter or something else—must be explored as part of the bill.

With amendment 173, Edward Mountain seeks to ensure that, at the end of the tenancy, a tenant who makes any category 1 or category 2 changes must return the property to its original state. Edward Mountain seeks to provide clarity and ensure that landlords do not have additional expenses at the end of a tenancy should a tenant wish to make personalised category 1 or category 2 changes to a property.

In relation to category 1 changes, I am referring to adjustments such as putting up posters and pictures. Category 2 changes would include things such as painting walls. That can vary a lot according to personal taste in colour, for example, so amendment 173 is about providing clarity for landlords and giving them reassurance that, should any of those changes be made, the tenant will be expected to return things to their original state.

It is interesting that the bill has little to say about tenants of social rented properties. That contrasts with the provisions that relate to the private sector. It makes you think that social tenants have perhaps been overlooked. There are slight differences between the new provisions for private rented properties and the existing provisions for social rented properties. However, we must ensure that, should tenants be allowed to make changes—I do not think that anyone is necessarily arguing against that—there will be a degree of reasonableness and proportionality in relation to what would be expected and the costs that the landlord would have to incur to change things back once a tenancy ended.

Amendment 174 would make it a duty on the Scottish ministers to specify changes to a let property that may be made by the tenant. That is really important. Again, this relates to category 1 and category 2 changes. I have already referred to the definitions of those, but it must be made clear in guidance that, should changes be allowed, landlords must know exactly what the changes look like and what category they fall under. If that is not the case, there might be a lot of discrepancy between what landlords and tenants think is reasonable. It would not be helpful if there were disagreements about that because it has not been properly legislated for in the bill.

Amendment 175 would specify that structural changes to a property must not be categorised as category 1 changes. Again, I believe that the amendment comes on the back of conversations that Edward Mountain had with people in the private rented sector. The Government should clarify category 1 and category 2 changes. Amendment 175 would provide more clarity by specifying that structural changes would not be categorised as category 1 changes.

Amendment 177 would make it a duty on the Scottish ministers to make provision in relation to when it is reasonable to refuse consent for a category 2 change, which, of course, is a step above a category 1 change. Again, this is about what it is fair, measured and reasonable for tenants to seek to do to a property. It would not be about painting walls a certain colour, but clarity on provisions on refusing consent would be helpful.

Amendment 178 would amend “may” to “must” in relation to the provision for the Scottish ministers to make provision about when it is reasonable for a landlord to refuse consent to the making of a new category 2 change to a let property. That is similar to amendment 177.

Amendment 179 would add that regulations must provide that it is reasonable for a landlord to refuse consent to any structural changes to the property. This is to ensure that we have seamless directions on what is expected and allowed and on what guidance landlords can follow. I do not believe that the bill currently provides that.

There are only two other amendments in the group, so it seems appropriate to allow the member who lodged those to speak first, and I can summarise at the end.

I move amendment 173.