Chamber and committees

Thank you, convener. I might fall at the first hurdle of brevity, because of the number of amendments that I have in the grouping.

I thank the wonderful team at Marie Curie who have worked alongside MSP colleagues on the amendments that I have lodged in this group.

A study that was undertaken by Marie Curie and the University of Glasgow, entitled “Dying in the Margins; The Cost of Dying”, laid bare the barriers to and experiences of dying at home for terminally ill people, their families and carers who are living with financial hardship and deprivation. Research analysis outlined the lack of compassion in immediately evicting relatives after a terminal illness or a terminally ill person has died, with relatives being forced to vacate properties only two weeks after the death, with no alternative accommodation in place. Not only are those individuals dealing with the tragic loss of a loved one and having to box up their possessions while grieving, but they are faced with the challenge of finding a new property should they receive an eviction notice, especially if they have no succession rights.

We can all understand and sympathise with the individuals who are impacted, because grieving takes longer than two weeks. The additional stress of whether someone will have a home that they can live in can take an unbearable toll on families who are adapting to life without caring for someone 24/7. I seek to bring some compassion into the Housing (Scotland) Bill through my amendments.

Marie Curie is rightly advocating that the bill should be used to strengthen the rights of terminally ill tenants and their families to ensure that they are protected from eviction. Evidence sessions that were undertaken by the UK Commission on Bereavement to better understand people’s experiences of bereavement found serious issues with eviction. It was noted that people in local authority housing can be asked to move out if they are not on the tenancy agreement, or they might be required to move to a smaller property. Surviving family members then face further challenges in raising sufficient funds to cover security deposits and advance rent payments on a new property at a time when they have likely had to pay expensive funeral or other administrative costs associated with death.

A survey that was conducted by Opinium for Marie Curie concluded that, every year, 27,600 people in Scotland must move out as a result of a bereavement. It stated that 13,200 people had to move out because they could no longer afford to live in their home, and 11,400 people had to move because they did not hold the tenancy. Of those whose housing situation is likely to be impacted as a result of a bereavement, under-35s make up 28 per cent, followed by those aged 35 to 54, at 11 per cent, and those aged 55 to 74 and 75-plus, at 5 per cent. People find themselves in precarious situations and might declare themselves as homeless, for example, because the right support is not in place to help them.

Following discussions with the cabinet secretary, it is not my intention to press amendment 119 or move amendment 120 today, with the proviso that there will be further discussion with stakeholders and supportive MSPs on protections from evictions for terminally ill people.

I would like to work with the cabinet secretary to define “terminal illness”, as we understand that individuals’ prognoses can be wide and we want to ensure that there are clear margins between diagnoses of chronic, life-limiting and life-ending conditions.

I will wait to see what the cabinet secretary says before I consider the other amendments on terminal illness, particularly in relation to succession rights for bereaved families. I believe that that is important and that it will help to tackle unintended homelessness on the back of a terminal illness.

Convener, if you can bear with me, before I conclude my remarks, I will turn to amendment 487, which is on a different matter. It is similar to amendment 452, which was lodged by Willie Rennie, and concerns decisions that were taken during the time of Covid on legislative changes to protect tenants from eviction, which have made it significantly more difficult for a congregation to reclaim the use of a manse once they have called a minister.

Manses are often let out by parishes when the minister’s post is vacant or when they are in between ministers. That provides much-needed income, as well as making that dwelling available for use. I believe that the issues to do with recovering possession of manses that have been let out on short-term basis will be exacerbated should section 24 of the bill be enacted in its current form. For the bill to be proportionate, there need to be further discussions with the Church of Scotland and other religious groups to ensure that the bill is fair and encompasses all groups.

Proposed new section 51A of the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016, as set out in section 24, states:

“When specifying in an eviction order the day on which a tenancy is to end, the First-tier Tribunal must consider whether it would be reasonable”

to delay the end of the tenancy. In doing so, the tribunal may consider certain factors, particularly factors relating to the tenant and to the landlord. Those relating to the landlord are:

“whether a period of delay in bringing the tenancy to an end would ... cause the landlord to experience financial hardship ... have a detrimental effect on the health of the landlord, or ... have another detrimental effect on the landlord due to the landlord having a disability”.

The balancing protections that will be available to landlords under that proposed new section will not be available to a landlord who is not considered to be a natural person. That is the point that I wish to make through amendment 487. The protections will not be available to Church of Scotland congregations. Manses are owned or let either by local congregational trustees or on behalf of the congregation or by the Church of Scotland general trustees.

Self-evidently, those factors cannot apply to the landlord in such cases. They are unlikely to apply regardless of whether the landlord is a general trustee or local congregational trustees, as their interest in securing vacant possession of a manse is not primarily financial but is to use it for housing a minister.

Prior to the removal of the mandatory eviction ground that let property was required for occupation by a person engaged in the work of a religious denomination as a residence from which their duties were performed, the Church of Scotland let out a large number of their manses on a temporary basis as a result of parish minister retirements and recruitment difficulties. The income that is generated from such lets is an important contribution towards sustaining the work and the mission of congregations and their local communities.

When ministers are called to a parish, it is important that a manse is available for them. However, it is challenging for a congregation to let an empty manse when it might not be able to get back the house when it is needed. That is already resulting in many situations in which congregations are now unwilling to let out such properties, and the church finds itself in the uncomfortable position of being the custodian of a considerable number of large dwellings that are standing empty. I do not think that that helps to tackle the housing emergency that we are experiencing.

This morning, I am asking the cabinet secretary to consider the impacts on manses—and properties belonging to religious groups other than the Church of Scotland, as highlighted in Willie Rennie’s amendment 452—to see whether there is a way forward in which it does not become difficult for those properties to be let out or brought back into use under the church when a minister is made available.

I understand that an amalgamation process is under way, but we must look at all those issues as part of the Housing (Scotland) Bill in relation to tenants’ rights.

I will end my remarks there, convener. I know that I will be coming back in shortly to speak to Edward Mountain’s amendments.

Thank you, convener. I will move amendment 119 but I confirm that I will withdraw it later.

Edward Mountain’s amendment 163 seeks to ensure that the three-month eviction process is concluded within three months of a tribunal application being submitted by the landlord.

I believe that Edward Mountain’s intention in relation to his amendments in this group—amendments 163 to 167—is to ensure that the tribunal application process is dealt with swiftly. Instead of the current process, we would have a defined three-month eviction process. The process will be concluded within that time, which will not just allow the tenant to move on to another property, wherever that might be, but allow the landlord perhaps to bring in a new tenant.

I conclude my comments there. Edward Mountain’s intention is straightforward.

I move amendment 119.

As the cabinet secretary has set out, amendment 168 would make it a duty for the Scottish ministers to make provision about when it is reasonable for a landlord to refuse to consent to a tenant keeping a pet at a let property. The amendment is about clarity. Similar to other amendments in the group, it is about knowing what is fair and reasonable, and it is about ensuring that landlords know what the parameters of that would be. It is similar to the amendments that would allow a tenant to know why keeping a pet in a property has been refused.

Amendment 169 would give the landlord the ability to reasonably refuse consent for pets to be kept at a property

“if the landlord has a medical reason”

for doing so. The amendment is very important. I think that it was Maggie Chapman who said that 18 per cent of landlords say that they do not allow pets. I believe that a small proportion of those landlords will have allergies to cats or dogs. In my view, that could be a justifiable reason for not allowing a pet at a property, particularly if the allergies are severe.

With the amendment, Edward Mountain is attempting to strike a reasonable balance. It does not say no to pets, but provides that, if a landlord owns a property and has to visit it for checks and other reasons, a medical condition would be a justifiable reason for not allowing a pet in that property. I imagine that that would apply to a relatively small number of landlords and would not be a widespread circumstance across the private rented sector.

Amendment 170 seeks to make it a duty for the Scottish ministers

“to make provision about when a landlord’s consent condition for keeping a pet”

at a let property

“is reasonable.”

It relates to amendment 168, as well as to amendment 171, which seeks to ensure that the Scottish ministers “must”, by regulations,

“make provision about when a condition specified in a landlord’s notice is reasonable.”

Again, that is about creating further clarity and guidance for landlords, should there be changes to tenants’ right to keep a pet.

Edward Mountain’s amendment 172 seeks to provide that a landlord can reasonably make it a condition that, when he or she consents for pets to be kept at a let property,

“any carpeted floor surfaces and soft furnishings must be professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy by”

an independent company. With amendment 172, Edward Mountain is again seeking to put pet ownership responsibility into the bill. If someone has a pet that sheds, for example, that could lead to the need for carpets and other soft furnishings to be cleaned. Amendment 172 seeks to address that circumstance.

Of course.

I believe that it was Edward Mountain’s intention to press the amendments, although he would welcome the conversation that we have had about the best way to provide clarity and whether that is in guidance or in secondary legislation. However, I believe that those things need to be introduced as quickly as possible to ensure that the private rented sector is aware of the changes that could happen to properties that are let out, and so that tenants who wish to make adaptations to their homes are also aware of that.

I am sympathetic to Maggie Chapman’s amendment 262 and would welcome a conversation with her on the issue before stage 3. She raises a valid and important points about tenants who have a disability, measuring that and setting out what adaptations they can make to their homes to make their lives easier. We are looking to the housing of the future. With a lot of new-build housing in particular, it is commonplace to have adaptations such as rails or wider doors anyway. We need to look at the issue in a reasonable and pragmatic way. We could have conversations in the run-up to stage 3 about how the proposal would impact the private rented sector as well as making life more comfortable for tenants who have a disability.

On the points about categories 1 and 2, I believe that we need more clarity. The engagement questionnaire suggested that category 1 would be things such as putting up pictures and posters on walls, as I said, but it also suggested that category 2 would be things such as painting walls and installing wall shelves. That is very limited information on what adaptations could be made. I understand that the information on that will come following further consultation and engagement, but the reason why members have lodged amendments on the issue is that they are unsure what the categories will look like. Members have had discussions with the sector and wanted to bring clarity to the bill.

I will press amendment 173, in the name of Edward Mountain.

A lot of important issues have been raised in relation to this grouping on evictions. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for our conversations on my amendments that deal with terminal illness. I have worked alongside Marie Curie, and other colleagues have been involved in those conversations. The conversations, working relationships and cross-party work that have taken place show a resetting of the approach to the bill. I welcome the opportunity to have further discussions with the cabinet secretary over the summer, which I hope will involve Marie Curie—the organisation that is behind the amendments on terminal illness.

I will touch on the amendments that relate to religious organisations letting out properties, which is a really important issue. I understand that that relates to legislation that was introduced during the pandemic, but there is a legacy issue. How can we find a balance between letting those homes out and ensuring that, when those homes need to be occupied by a minister of a local church, that can happen? I do not believe that we can resolve that issue overnight, but Ross Greer’s suggestion about the cabinet secretary meeting religious groups and organisations to see what can be done to tease out the issues would be a step in the right direction.

It has been made clear at stage 1 and now, at stage 2, that we need to consider how to strengthen the tribunal’s powers in relation to its overall authority to strengthen tenants’ rights. We also need to consider, from the perspective of landlords, whether the tribunal has followed the correct processes and, if it has, how landlords can find a suitable resolution to any issues that are being raised. That is raised in various amendments today, and certainly in relation to evictions, which this grouping deals with.

I am sympathetic to Maggie Chapman’s amendments on winter evictions. My problem is with how we define winter. Maggie Chapman might want to explore that but, given the climate in Scotland, it will be incredibly difficult to work out. We have some summers that look like winters, for example, and we could end up with a year-long process that does not allow any eviction processes to happen.

I understand that that could be the position that Maggie Chapman wants to set out, and she is within her rights to do so. However, there has to be a balance, because there are situations in which landlords need to take back their property. If we put in measures against winter evictions, that could prevent such things from happening in situations where they genuinely need to.

I take on board Maggie Chapman’s comments. As I said, I am sympathetic to the situation that people could be faced with, given the climate in Scotland. However, we have to balance that against what our climate is like generally. There could be a means to expand what such a protection would do, given that we have extreme weather throughout different parts of the year. I know that Maggie Chapman is saying that that is not her intention, but I feel that her amendments could be the starting point for expanding such an approach.

I understand what Mark Griffin is trying to do in his amendment 502. Graham Simpson made an important point about whether the grant issue should be dealt with at UK level instead of in the bill. However, given that Mark Griffin’s proposal is about tenants’ rights and housing in general, I believe that it was right to lodge the amendment, even if he decides not to move it.

I understand that time is ticking on, convener, so I will leave my remarks there. I seek to withdraw amendment 119.

Amendment 119, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 120 not moved.

Section 24—Private residential tenancies: duty to consider delay to eviction

Amendments 122, 123, 491, 124 and 125 not moved.

Amendment 163 moved—[Meghan Gallacher].

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?

I understand the point about underresourcing, but that is due to years and years of underfunding of local government.

We need to get back to the consultation point, if we can. I am concerned that you have consulted on one area, only to ignore the responses that you have received and decide to take different action. How will you restore confidence, particularly in the SME sector, that you will not make another decision in future that will go against the consultations that you have made in that particular area?

There is also an issue around the tribunal that we need to look at in relation to the groups that are impacted. Usually, the congregation needs to go to the tribunal and must weigh up the costs that are associated with that and the time impact on its ability to move a minister in and move the tenant out—that is, of course, if the tribunal agrees with the decision.