Chamber and committees

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.

I understand exactly what Maggie Chapman is saying. I do not want to pre-empt what my colleague Edward Mountain would say, but I am certain that he would like to bring these or similar amendments back at stage 3 so that he can speak to them himself, as he been unable to attend committee for the reasons that I gave at an earlier committee meeting on the bill. I can certainly take the conversation that we have just had back to him. As the amendments are his, I do not think that it would be right for me to come to any conclusion on that.

Amendment 180 seeks to put a duty on the Scottish ministers to make provision about the consent condition for keeping a pet and what makes that reasonable. Again, that is about seeking more clarity.

Amendment 182 is, as Maggie Chapman and I have just discussed, in relation to carpeted floors and soft furnishings being professionally cleaned by an independent company at the end of a tenancy. Again, that is about responsibility in pet ownership. It is probably what you would do in your own home should furnishings need to be cleaned for any pet-related reasons.

I turn to other amendments in the group, because these are issues that I care about. Maggie Chapman is absolutely right that about my entering a Dogs Trust dog in the Holyrood dog of the year competition. I have done so every year bar one, when I was on maternity leave, and that is because I believe in what the organisation is trying to achieve. It is trying to make it easier for people to own a pet and, of course, ensure that animals do not end up in rescue homes, when they can have forever homes. I think that most committee members would support that.

I have an issue with amendments 24 and 28. Actually, it is not an issue as such; I have a view on the timeframes that are acceptable or reasonable. Will the timeframe be 14 days, 28 days or something else? I do not think that we can necessarily determine that at today’s committee meeting. We might need to have another discussion about it—I know that we will be having a lot of discussions—to work out what would be fair and reasonable. I can come up with scenarios, such as a landlord being on holiday or ill, or there could be other personal circumstances that might mean that they do not have sufficient time to respond within the 14 day period. I understand that there could be workarounds to allow for those circumstances, but I wonder whether 28 days would be more reasonable than 14 days—I have already discussed that with the Dogs Trust—or whether there should be another timeframe. We can all have a good debate about the timeframe as we approach stage 3, because it is important.

On amendment 25, on whether a request would be automatically approved, we need to determine what timeframe would be appropriate before we consider the amendment. However, I understand the reasoning and I am sympathetic to the proposal, given the points that have been raised about people having the right to own a pet, which I think that many members would support in principle. We also need to consider the type of pet, which has been mentioned briefly but not at length. There is a massive difference between a Border terrier and a Siberian husky, for example. I am not trying to say which breed of dog is my favourite, because I have friends who own each of those breeds, but we need to consider that and be mindful of whether a small rental property would be an appropriate place to keep a large dog.

On Maggie Chapman’s amendments on assistance animals, I take the cabinet secretary’s point about the Equality Act 2010, but I would be interested in understanding whether that would cover additional animals such as therapy pets. I am not entirely sure that it does, which is why I am throwing out the issue for discussion. We also need to look at that as we approach stage 3. Assistance dogs could be guide dogs to assist people with their sight or hearing loss, or it could refer to other therapy pets.

I will leave my comments there. I think that I have addressed all Edward Mountain’s amendments in group 26, and, certainly, the amendment that I have an interest in.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I move amendment 173.

I 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.

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 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.