Chamber and committees

I appreciate that these are not your amendments and that you are speaking on behalf of Edward Mountain. One of my concerns with amendments 172 and 182, on professional cleaning, is the costs. I wonder whether, if we had conversations with Edward Mountain between now and stage 3, he would consider amending the wording slightly to say that the property must be cleaned either professionally or in another way to a similar standard, to ensure that tenants are not liable for extortionate costs. I also wonder whether there would be room for conversation about exempting people with assistance animals from those costs.

The protection would specifically be for the four months over winter—November, December, January and February—so that is clear. I am not saying that it needs to extend to awful weather at other times of the year; it is about winter evictions.

How would you respond to the question of there being different protections in other parts of the UK, where there will soon be that 12-month protection—with appropriate exemptions for the issues that you raised, such as the abandonment of property or antisocial behaviour?

I understand what the cabinet secretary is saying, but surely a disabled person should not have to go through a tribunal. They should not be put through that additional hurdle in order to have the animal that allows them to function in society living with them. It is another burden and adds more bureaucracy, which we would not ask of somebody who is not disabled, so why are we asking it of somebody who is disabled?

I appreciate the potential issue that the cabinet secretary has highlighted, but, surely, the flipside of that is also true: if a landlord does not respond and, therefore, a tenant has assumed refusal, they would have absolutely no way of seeking to appeal or challenge the decision. That is how it is currently presented, although that might not be the intention. A landlord may be happy for a renter to have a pet but there may be reasons why they have not responded to their request. The tenant may think, “They haven’t met the deadline, so I have no options left.”

Will the member take an intervention?

Amendment 262, in my name, continues on from my amendments on assistance animals in the previous group. It takes the Equality Act 2010 provisions on changes to rental properties for disabled people as the starting point but makes more explicit the fact that changes to make the property accessible should not require explicit approval. The amendment is meant to clarify disabled people’s rights in relation to changes to a property and to stop disabled people having to rely on the provision of section 190 of the Equality Act 2010. Those include changes to make a property wheelchair accessible, changes to create accessible washing and cooking facilities and facilities that relate to assistance animals, and changes that relate to the installation of guardrails, handrails, visual alarms and bells.

As with my previous amendments, these provisions are supported by the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland, Guide Dogs Scotland and Sight Scotland. I am happy to work with colleagues on the drafting of the amendments ahead of stage 3 to address any concerns that they might have about any of the wording of amendment 262.

Amendment 252, in my name, establishes a right to grow food and plants in outdoor spaces of rented properties. The physical and mental health benefits of gardening and growing your own food are well established, and this amendment would ensure that there should be no undue barriers to renters using outdoor spaces that are part of a property to grow their own food and plants as well as to promote animal and insect life, such as by planting flowers that support pollinators. That kind of action is vital as we are facing a nature emergency, with many of Scotland’s animal, insect and plant species threatened with extinction.

Given that young people in the most deprived areas of Scotland have significantly worse access to play space, the amendment also seeks to make it easier for modest changes to be made to garden and other spaces, so that they can enjoy the benefits of outdoor play.

Turning to the other amendments in the group, I agree that major structural changes should be out of scope, so there is Green support for Edward Mountain’s amendments 176 and 179. However, on his amendment 173, although it would help to smooth the process of tenants gaining approval for changes to a property, requiring all changes to be reversed unless the landlord agrees otherwise might have unintended consequences, including for disabled people who have made accessibility changes. Therefore, I ask Edward Mountain to work with colleagues ahead of stage 3 to address those concerns.

I have a quick question. One of the concerns is that the rent that is adjudicated could be higher than the amount that was asked for. That surely cannot be what the Government is intending. Is that what the cabinet secretary intends, or is there room for something else to come through?

I will focus my comments on my amendments in the group; I know that my colleague Ariane Burgess will speak to others.

My amendments are designed to focus on the quality and efficiency of properties. We know that many landlords in the private sector provide high-quality homes, but we also know that many do not, and improvement across the board is definitely needed.

At least 55 per cent of homes in the private sector have wall insulation, compared with 69 per cent in the social sector. That is why almost 70 per cent of social homes have an energy performance certificate rating of C or higher, which is almost 20 per cent higher than in the private sector.

Levels of disrepair to critical elements are the highest in the private sector. In relation to overall quality, in 2023, 40 per cent of private sector dwellings failed the Scottish housing quality standard, compared to only 30 per cent in the social sector.

One of my hopes for the bill is that it raises tenants’ awareness of their rights significantly. As Emma Roddick has already alluded to, there is a lot of opacity and people are not sure where they stand. Too often, renters do not know their rights, they do not know where to get the right information and they do not know how to challenge landlords who contravene those rights.

Under the bill as drafted, tenants would have a mere 21 days in which to challenge a rent increase. If they do not act within those three weeks, an illegal increase would then be unchallengeable. That cannot be right. Tenants—perhaps thousands of them—who have busy lives, might not have time to research their rights and might not even be aware of those rights, and if they do not make a challenge in those three weeks, they will be ripped off by landlords, with the stamp of approval of the Scottish Government and the bill. I hardly need to say that I do not think that that is acceptable. Until we get to a position in which tenants know their rights and are fully supported, we need to offer some flexibility. My amendments 161, 162, 201 and 202 do that by increasing the limit from three weeks to one year.

I have not simply invented that figure. It comes directly from the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018, which allows those with a good reason not to have challenged a decision on their payment sooner to challenge it for up to a year. There is therefore congruence with other legislation that the Parliament has passed.

My other set of amendments in the group addresses concerns that were raised by Living Rent. At the moment, renters who challenge rent can end up with the rent officer raising the rent beyond that which is being asked by the landlord. That acts as a serious disincentive to challenging an unreasonable rent notice and might explain why there are so few challenges to rent service Scotland. My amendments 497, 498, and 499 would resolve that anomaly and offer discretion to the rent officer to take into account quality, energy efficiency and other relevant standards when considering a rent challenge.

Amendments 238, 239, and 240 would introduce a £10,000 fine if the landlord has levied an increase beyond that which is allowed under rent control provisions. That is absolutely crucial. At the current level of £1,000, landlords might take a calculated risk that, if they can raise rents more than is allowed, the amount that will be gained might be more than that £1,000. A fine of £10,000 would offer a genuine disincentive. We cannot allow landlords to chance their arm or write off fines as simply a cost of doing business.

Emma Roddick’s amendments 139 and 140 also try to create, through the fines system, a financial incentive for landlords not to challenge illegal increases. The fines are less strong, but I support the principle behind the amendments.

Amendments 399 and 400, from the Government, would lengthen the timescale for challenging rent increases in areas that are not rent controlled. That is welcome, but a nine-day increase is minimal and not sufficient, and I ask the cabinet secretary to consider bringing back a much stronger version at stage 3.