Chamber and committees

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what new steps it has taken to tackle national health service waiting lists. (S6O-01423)

I thank the minister for his answer, and I accept that wider reforms are needed. However, I want to get the substantive point on the agenda now. For that reason, I will press amendment 45, but I will not move my other amendments when the convener asks me.

I had wanted to intervene on the minister in relation to amendment 45, but he might not have heard me. He said that existing protections will apply, but he did not say what those are. I am not clear what the protections are, and I do not think that I am the only member who has had such cases. The landlord has to pass the hardship test, but I am not talking about the hardship test; I am talking about the statement that the landlord then requires to live in the property. That will never be tested.

I do not understand the difference, in layperson’s terms, between wrongful termination and an unlawful eviction. If someone wrongly terminates the contract by saying that they will move into the property but does not do so, that surely must be unlawful. In the discussion about evictions that we had in the chamber during the passage of the coronavirus legislation, Andy Wightman talked about the 17 grounds. Under the bill, if the hardship test was passed, it would be relatively easy for someone to say that they were moving into a property while not doing so.

I have to express a bit of disappointment that that point has not been taken on board by ministers. I could probably have guessed what the minister would say about the remainder of the amendments—I am not suggesting that my amendments are the best way forward to make landlords prove that they are moving into a property. However, I stand by what I am saying: as the law stands, it is quite easy for landlords, having passed the first test, to say that they are doing that, but no one will ever check whether they have done so. Unfortunately, the poor tenant will already be out of the property.

My first set of amendments in the group—amendments 6, 16 and 24—address the matter of landlords not raising rents between tenancies. Up to 31 March 2023, the amendments would prevent a landlord from raising the rent of a property between tenancies and would apply to private rented sector short assured tenancies and Scottish secure tenancies. I want to test a couple of issues from my Fair Rents (Scotland) Bill of the previous parliamentary session in relation to this bill, and this is one of them.

I have a concern that, unless the issue is addressed, we might see a surge in illegal evictions or illegal rent increases. Third sector organisations have raised that in their briefings for members this week. Citizens Advice Scotland, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Poverty Alliance and Shelter Scotland are concerned about unintended consequences of the bill for tenants and landlords; with low public awareness of the issue, they are concerned that there runs the risk of an increased number of evictions and unlawful rent increases, with unclear options for redress.

I ask ministers to consider their response to the concern that, although the framework of the legislation is clear on how things will work if landlords operate within the law, a small minority of landlords might not operate within the law. I ask them to also consider the fact that being “between tenancies” means that the tenant has already been evicted and the landlord can impose a new rent, which is not subject to a rent freeze. The joint briefing from the organisations that I named expresses sincere and widespread concerns about illegal evictions, which I ask ministers to address.

My amendments 9 and 10 relate to the statement that, under the framework of the bill, landlords will make in relation to their application to increase rents. The amendments would ensure that landlords cannot insist that their proposed increase is applied until after the rent officer or First-tier Tribunal of Scotland has approved it. Further to that, the landlord would have to make it clear in their communication to the tenant that the new rent was not payable until it had been approved.

I am exploring that because I do not believe that we have the right balance between landlords and tenants in the legislative framework beyond the bill—Richard Leonard made that point yesterday in the stage 1 debate, as did other members. Where possible, we must seek to balance the situation for what might be fearful tenants who think that, because their landlord has applied for an increase, it will automatically be approved. I would like landlords to have to explain to their tenants that they are applying for an increase and want that to be included in the statement, because the tribunal might not be satisfied that the hardship test has been met.

I do not want to comment much on the amendments from Willie Rennie and Miles Briggs in the group. However, I have one point to make to Willie Rennie.

It is difficult to disagree with Edward Mountain on that. In anything that I have ever said in the Parliament on the issue, I have always tried to strike the right balance between landlords and tenants, and it does not help anyone to have an inefficient tribunal system. I have no difficulty in agreeing with his comment.

I do not want tenants thinking that, because a landlord has applied for an increase, it will be approved—notwithstanding Edward Mountain’s point that the process can take some time. I totally accept that that is not fair to the landlord, but it is also unfair to the tenant. Through my amendments, I seek fairness for tenants.

I have one point to make to Willie Rennie about universal credit. It is quite important to understand that, in the housing support sector, for people who are on low pay and who do not get universal credit or other support from the Government, it is incredibly hard to access hardship funds. I have argued that many times. I ask members not to discount poor families and children—particularly those in the private rented sector, which is where poverty mainly lies—and to do more to ensure that those families have the support that they need to maintain their tenancies. I have spoken for long enough and will allow Willie Rennie to intervene.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I want to ask about internal waiting times. Last week, an NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde oncologist raised with my office concerns that cancer-related scans now take up to eight weeks to be returned, when they should normally be returned within one week. The fact that oncologists are waiting for the results of important scans will clearly have a knock-on effect on patients in a priority area of treatment.

Is the cabinet secretary aware of that situation and is he acting on it? What assurances can he give oncologists in Glasgow and the health board area that the scans of worried patients will be returned in a much-reduced timescale?

The member makes his point very well, but I hope that my point is not overlooked. If the provision of support is based on entitlement to hardship funds, by and large many people will not meet the test. Such provision is not universal. When we are in the middle of an acute cost of living crisis, the fact that those who do not receive Government support need better ways to support their tenancies is an issue that we must address further down the line. I make that wider point.

I will speak to amendments 45, 50, 56, 58, 65 and 66, in my name. They relate to the right to apply for a wrongful termination order. These amendments provide for a tenant to be able to apply for a wrongful termination order if a landlord fails to take up occupancy of the property. The bill as drafted deals with landlords who intend to sell a property. I am dealing with the second half of that—the proposed paragraph 4A(1) to schedule 3 of the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016:

“It is an eviction ground that the landlord intends to live in the ... property to alleviate financial hardship”,

which applies if the landlord

“(i) is suffering financial hardship, and

(ii) intends to alleviate that hardship by occupying the let property as the landlord’s only or principal home”.

There is nothing wrong with that.

Under current housing law, there are 17 grounds for eviction. I have seen many cases in which the landlord has said, “You are being evicted because I or my family intend to move into that property.” I appreciate that this provision is narrower than that. However, I want to probe this issue, because nothing in the bill provides that there must be evidence that the landlord has moved into the property. For the purposes of probing that, I have come up with the suggestion that three months of council tax would be expected to be paid if someone was actually living in the property.

Especially when we are dealing with emergency legislation, which is quite a rushed process, it is important to ensure that we do not leave any loopholes. Members might think that such cases are few and far between and that they cannot be resolved, because the tenant is already evicted. However, my amendments in the group seek to discourage landlords who decide to use financial hardship for grounds of eviction and who say that they need to move into the property that they are renting out but then subsequently do not do so and a new tenant moves in.

As I said, at the beginning of the pandemic I dealt with many constituency cases involving people who had to move out of their property simply because their landlord said, “I’d like this property, thank you very much.” I am simply seeking to flush out any landlords who seek to take that approach. I realise that it might be a tiny minority, but, if we are to consider the bill properly, I would like to probe that issue.

I move amendment 45.

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that police officer numbers dropped to 16,610 at the end of June, below Police Scotland’s “full officer establishment” of 17,234. (S6F-01389)