Chamber and committees

Mr Sweeney raised that with me in our discussions. Given that it is only a few days since we had that discussion, I have not had time to take advice on the particular details, but I reassure him that I am seeking further advice to see whether we could work together on something for stage 3. I will be happy to get back to the member once I have received that advice.

Enforcement is incredibly important, because there is no point in having rights and obligations if those are not being enforced. As I will come on to say, I am keen to work with a number of members to see what can be done. Many of the improvement issues can be dealt with in a non-legislative way, and the conversations that I hope to have over the summer will also show whether there are gaps in primary legislation that we need to come back to. Enforcement measures, such as fines, may be something that we will have to come back to by using legislation.

Amendment 249, in the name of Daniel Johnson, and amendment 385, in the name of Ariane Burgess, would provide that a tenant could withhold rent payments when the landlord failed to meet the repairing standard. Although I agree that the landlord should always meet the repairing standard, such issues are already provided for in law. Section 26(2)(b) of the 2006 act already enables the First-tier Tribunal to make a rent relief order when a landlord has failed to comply with a repairing standard enforcement order. A rent relief order is one that reduces the rent by up to 90 per cent for the duration of the order.

Amendments 249 and 385 would both put the onus on the tenant to determine whether they could withhold rent, rather than having a judicial assessment of whether the rent could be withheld. That approach would create the risk that a tenant could be left with significant rent arrears to make up if they were to get the assessment of the repairing standard wrong, and I would be greatly concerned about that change. The existing rent relief process, under section 27 of the 2006 act, enables the First-tier Tribunal to issue a rent relief order. That mechanism provides reassurance to the tenant that the reduced rent will not have to be paid back at a later date and that they can legitimately pay less rent without any fear of later repercussions.

In my view, amendments 249 and 385, although exceptionally well intentioned, would not improve tenants’ rights.

I am just about to come on to that issue, too, convener. As I have said, there are existing tenants’ rights in relation to repairs and enforcement. The amendments that we are dealing with today and the discussions that I have had with members highlight the fact that those rights are meaningful only if tenants and relevant bodies know how to use them and if there are no barriers to using them. Convener, the point that you have made with that one example, which is just one of the many examples that we have discussed under this group of amendments, is an exceptionally important one.

It is important that, as long as we are looking at how the regulatory framework can be improved—for example, through primary or secondary legislation—we also look at what additional non-legislative support can be put in place. We can explore a range of options with the potential to better enable tenants to exercise their rights, such as raising further awareness of existing rights and providing routes of redress such as third-party reporting, where the local authority applies to the tribunal to enforce necessary repairs on behalf of a tenant. Other forms of practical support and advice are available to help tenants navigate the tribunal process.

I am keen to work with stakeholders and members to consider what additional interventions would be feasible and effective to achieve the policy objectives behind many of the amendments in this group. I still do not believe that primary legislative change is required here, but work definitely is, and I hope that that work will allow us to meet those policy objectives.

Amendment 254, in the name of Ariane Burgess, would provide Scottish ministers with the power to delegate to such a public body as they consider appropriate the function of providing officers under the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949 with the ability to do certain things, such as inspect workers accommodation. I recognise the need to ensure that accommodation for agricultural workers is fit for habitation, but I do not agree that amendment 254 would provide the reassurance that is being sought. It is unclear whether the amendment creates a function that can be delegated, and it is also not clear that wages officers under the 1949 act would have the expertise to enable them to inspect the standard of property, given that their main function relates to the wages paid to agricultural workers. Scoping work has been on-going to help us better understand the full context of the issue and potential solutions.

Local authorities are currently responsible for enforcement of legal housing standards. Enforcement generally happens on a reactive basis, when local authorities are made aware of concerns about the condition of property and can respond. Although local authorities would welcome stronger powers to address poor agricultural seasonal worker accommodation, enforcement would pose challenges for local authorities. The Government is fully committed to further engagement with local authorities and other interested parties on that issue, and development work to understand how it can be addressed is on-going.

I therefore ask the member not to move amendment 254.

I absolutely recognise the point that you are making, and I would be happy to provide that information in writing to you and the committee following today’s discussions.

Amendments 477 and 479, in the name of Paul Sweeney, would oblige Scottish ministers to provide a process by which a tenant may request a local authority to buy the house that they rent if that house does not comply with housing standards. Although I support the principle that private rented homes should be of good quality, the proposed amendments could lead to the local authority purchasing a substandard property instead of enforcing housing standards. There is no need for a statutory right for a tenant to request that a local authority exercise its existing powers to make a compulsory purchase of a property; tenants can approach their local authority and make such a request at present.

There are also existing enforcement mechanisms for local authorities when a property fails to meet the tolerable standard or the repairing standard, both of which I have talked about in relation to previous amendments in the group. Where a landlord has failed to comply with housing standards, it would be more appropriate for those standards to be enforced than to expect the local authority to purchase the property. Although I appreciate the intention behind the amendments, I consider them to be unnecessary and I urge the member not to move them. However, as with previous amendments in the group, I am very happy to work with Mr Sweeney to see whether there is a non-legislative approach that can be taken to achieve his aim of greater connectivity between compulsory purchase orders and tenants knowing their rights in that area. Indeed, I thank him for the conversations that we have already had on that point.

Amendment 489, in the name of Ariane Burgess, aims to enable the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland to consult an independent person when considering whether a landlord has complied with certain aspects of the repairing standard. Although I understand the reasoning behind the amendment, what is proposed is already provided for in law. The First-tier Tribunal for Scotland Housing and Property Chamber (Procedure) Regulations 2017 already give the tribunal very wide powers to obtain expert evidence. In addition, paragraph 2 of schedule 2 to the 2006 act enables the tribunal to request and consider a report from a third party. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment, given that what is proposed is already amply provided for in law.

Amendment 490, in the name of Daniel Johnson, would impose an obligation on an owner or occupier of the property in a tenement building to take steps to ensure that utility companies have access to common parts of the tenement for the purpose of maintenance, repair and installation work. Utility companies already have access rights under other legislation. The Electricity Act 1989, sections 17 and 19 of the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004 and secondary legislation that was made in relation to the 2004 act already provide the framework for access to areas of tenements for maintenance purposes, including access for gas and heating utility companies to install services. Accordingly, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, and I ask Mr Johnson not to move it.

Daniel Johnson’s amendment raises an important point about improvements, which Mark Griffin has detailed. The work that I have undertaken to prepare for this meeting suggests that we are in a good place in that regard, but, if Daniel Johnson believes that there are remaining concerns, I am happy to look at that before stage 3 and to speak to him and providers in that area to see whether those concerns are shared.

Work is on-going with the Scottish Law Commission to consider potential reforms to the law on tenement management schemes in the 2004 act, and that work, which will report in spring 2026, might assist with some of those areas. However, if Mr Griffin and Mr Johnson are still concerned about the issue, we are happy to come back to the points that they have raised, whether in relation to superfast broadband or to other areas, because it is exceptionally important that we look at those aspects. I am happy to take the matter away and seek further reassurance.

Although I recognise the intent behind amendment 516, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, to make all new dwellings safer, I cannot support an amendment that seeks to change subordinate legislation without consultation. The Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004, which prevent the installation of combustible external wall cladding systems on relevant buildings, were confirmed in 2022, following consultation the previous year. A formal review process would be needed to support a change in the scope of those regulations, and evidence to support such a change would be essential. The safety case for change and the economic and social impacts require to be understood, quantified and consulted on before an informed decision can be made.

Many will be aware that, as part of our response to the Grenfell tower inquiry phase 2 report, we have committed to a further broad review of standards, and a call for evidence on our current fire safety provisions will be launched this autumn. That will provide an opportunity for the issues that have been raised in Meghan Gallacher’s amendments to be considered and for relevant evidence to be gathered. The call for evidence will support us in identifying and prioritising improvements to our fire safety standards, and I believe that that is the correct way of moving forward with the issues that Ms Gallacher has raised in her amendment. Accordingly, I cannot support the amendment today, but I hope that the on-going consultation will assist with the process.

I will briefly summarise. The Scottish Government is absolutely determined to bring forward Awaab’s law in the social rented sector and the private rented sector. The ways of doing it are different for those two sectors because of the legislation, but the end point for them is absolutely the same. I am happy to work with Mr Simpson on that in the run-up to stage 3.

I will reflect on that exact point imminently, Mr Simpson.

I hope that Meghan Gallacher will be reassured that, although it is not a housing issue, there has been a recent consultation on extending the current provisions on combustible cladding to hotels and similar premises. The consultation closed on 7 March and the responses to it are currently being analysed, and the outcomes will be confirmed in the autumn. I hope that that picks up the point outwith housing, which is being looked at in that consultation. I am sure that relevant ministers will keep Ms Gallacher informed of that consultation and the Government’s response in due course.

Without putting further pressure on the work on repairing standards that we are about to do over the summer, an important outcome of that work will be clarity on whether changes are required in primary or secondary legislation or whether, as we have spoken about, things can be done using non-legislative measures such as improving people’s knowledge of their rights. We need to think about what it is more important and useful to have in secondary legislation, which, as Maggie Chapman knows, is much easier to change—to add to or to take away from—over time, as circumstances, events and requirements change depending on what happens. That is why, for such aspects, I would suggest that secondary legislation is a more appropriate mechanism.

Alongside that, our current consultation includes consideration of the information that landlords should be required to give to tenants in situations where the property is exempt from rent control or where an increase above the level of the rent cap is permitted.

I therefore urge Maggie Chapman not to press her amendments. I would be happy to work with her, ahead of stage 3, to ensure that the concerns that she has raised about how we can use the existing powers to maximum effect, to ensure that tenants are given relevant information and are aware of their rights, are addressed.

Amendment 274, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would require a social landlord to provide information to a tenant about their ability to join a tenants union before they sign their tenancy agreement. I understand Maggie Chapman’s wish to have the amendment supported across the private and social rented sectors. However, in legislative terms, the two sectors are very different in that social housing tenants have, since 2001, had a statutory right to tenant participation with their landlord. That was further strengthened by the introduction of the Scottish social housing charter, in 2012. Accordingly, I cannot support amendments 273 and 274, as what they propose is already provided for in statute and in guidance.

I urge members to support amendments 354 to 361 and, if they are moved, not to support the amendments in the names of Mark Griffin, Daniel Johnson and Maggie Chapman, for the reasons that I have set out.

I move amendment 354.

As the committee is already aware, the bill sets out that any designation of a rent control area will apply for a period of five years, and section 11 of the bill requires ministers to keep rent control areas under review to ensure that they remain necessary and proportionate.

We realise that it will be crucial for Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament more widely to keep under review the impact of the bill on the private rented sector, which is particularly important when it comes to the impact of the rent control measures that we have introduced.

Although I have some concerns about the specific details and the amendments that have been lodged, I would be willing, ahead of stage 3, to look at how we can put a requirement to report on the impact of the rent control measures on a legislative footing.

Graham Simpson’s amendment 70 would create a duty on Scottish ministers to review the operation of the rent control measures of the bill every five years, particularly in relation to the impact on the rental market and housing affordability, to publish a report on the review and to lay that report before Parliament.

I agree with the principle of monitoring the impact of part 1 of the bill, and Graham Simpson’s proposal to do so on a five-yearly basis is broadly in line with the local authority assessment process and is therefore a sensible one. However, I have some concerns about the specific drafting of his amendments in this group, due to the inflexible nature of the statutory duties that they set out.

In particular, I have very real concerns about Mr Simpson’s amendments 71, 72 and 76, which are consequential to amendment 70 and would confer a very broad power—some would say a sweeping power—on Scottish ministers to modify any act in relation to the outcome of the review. I do not consider that such broad powers are proportionate. The rent control measures that are set out in the bill have been designed to include the flexibility to modify various aspects of the regime where that is necessary and proportionate. Such broad powers as those proposed would create uncertainty and would have a negative impact on future investment, which we all agree is so vital.

I do want to work with Graham Simpson on this issue, however. My offer is to work with him on a stage 3 amendment that would incorporate his proposal in amendment 70 for a five-yearly reporting requirement. I cannot support the associated wide-ranging powers to modify legislation that he has proposed, but I hope that he would be willing to take up my offer to work with him, and that we can find something more proportionate. On that basis, I would Graham Simpson not to press his amendments.

Amendment 226, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, would require the Scottish ministers to conduct an impact assessment of the provisions of the eventual act on rural and island communities no later than 12 months after royal assent. Although I am supportive of Rachael Hamilton’s focus on rural areas, I believe that the measures in the bill will support all areas of Scotland. We have already published a suite of documents to support the introduction of the bill that set out our assessment of the impacts of the proposed measures, and it would seem to be relevant to the intent behind the amendment.

I recognise the benefit of monitoring the impact of the measures in the bill once they are implemented, particularly on rural landlords, but an assessment that requires to be carried out while the measures are still in the process of being implemented—as would be the case under the terms of amendment 226—would be administratively burdensome. I would be more supportive of reporting on the impacts on the rural sector as part of our overall assessment of the rent controls under the bill on a five-yearly basis. I therefore aim to ensure that the amendment that I hope to agree with Mr Simpson ahead of stage 3 will also address the underlying principle that Rachael Hamilton has quite rightly addressed today. On that basis, I cannot support Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 226, and I urge members not to support it if it is moved.