Chamber and committees

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.

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.

Good morning, minister. You are on record as saying that

“Planning has not created the housing emergency, but it can help us to find solutions to the challenges that we face.”—[Official Report, 12 November 2024; c 12.]

Surely what is being proposed here goes against what you have previously said about trying to secure more planning developments in order to tackle the housing emergency. As Mark Griffin has rightly asked, will the fact that the consultation said one thing but you are going to do another squeeze out SMEs?

If small and medium-sized developments cannot progress, though, that will not help tackle the housing emergency. Is that something that you would charge for?

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.

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.

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.