Chamber and committees

The consultation for both the social and private rented sectors will be held in the current calendar year. I will come to this later in my comments on the group, but it has been raised in the conversations that colleagues have had with me—and this is demonstrated in the amendments that have been lodged—that the powers exist in many places but they are not being used, for a number of reasons. I am keen to get to the details of why they are not being used. In this case, I believe that a change to the primary legislation is required, with timescales, to ensure that the standards requirements are being implemented. In other cases, a non-legislative approach might be taken, but in this case I am convinced that we need to change the legislation to make the changes happen that we all want to see.

I very much agree with Mr Simpson’s premise that something further needs to be done. That is exactly why the Government is committed to a consultation this calendar year, which will include details of hazards and timescales. We have had that power in the past. What we will come to, in a myriad of points during this grouping in particular, is that, for whatever reason, those powers are not being enforced to adequate standards. That is why the Government will bring forward a list of hazards and timescales as per the work that is being done in England. We are not just saying, “There is a power” and doing nothing about it; we are undertaking a consultation with further details, to ensure that that happens.

Amendments 231A, 443, 444, 448 and 446 all seek to remove Scottish ministers’ discretion as to how to apply Awaab’s law in the social and private rented sectors. That element of discretion is needed to enable us to consult stakeholders and engage with the UK Government to ensure that private tenants in Scotland are at least as protected in relation to repairs as those in England and Wales are. I am happy to work with Graham Simpson to identify any issues that he has with the proposals for Awaab’s law, but we need to take cognisance of the work that has been happening in England as the UK Government moves through the consultation process on the complexity of that work and of our obligations, to make sure that we get this right on behalf of tenants.

Amendments 221 and 222, in the name of Mark Griffin, look at more general repairs in social and private tenancies. Amendment 221 would, via regulations, oblige Scottish ministers to confer a right on a tenant in a social tenancy to have certain prescribed hazards repaired. It would also amend a social landlord’s repairing obligations to provide that they must

“ensure that there are no prescribed hazards”

within the house. Amendment 222 would amend the repairing standard in the 2006 act to oblige a private landlord to ensure that there are no current or prospective prescribed hazards in the house.

Amendments 221 and 222 would oblige landlords to ensure that there are no prescribed hazards in the property, but the landlord might not be in a position to know whether such hazards are present. An obligation to remedy defects and hazards once they are known would be more achievable. The amendments also cut across the existing rights of social and private tenants to have repairs carried out, thereby creating a confusing regulatory landscape for landlords and tenants. As those issues are already provided for in law, I cannot support those amendments. Again, I point Mr Griffin to the work that is being undertaken on Awaab’s law in both the social and private rented sectors.

Amendments 257 and 267, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would provide that rent for private residential tenancies in a rent control area cannot not be increased unless the property

“meets minimum standards specified by the Scottish ministers in regulations.”

Similarly, amendment 442, in the name of Ariane Burgess, would place a duty on ministers to create, through affirmative regulation, a new lettable standard that all residential properties must meet.

Although I agree with Ms Chapman and Ms Burgess on the importance of all rented properties complying with appropriate standards, statutory standards and enforcement measures are already in place for rented properties. The repairing standard already obliges landlords to keep their property to specified standards, with enforcement mechanisms being available should they fail to do so. The tolerable standard applies to all houses in a local authority area. The Scottish housing quality standard applies to properties in the social rented sector. There are existing enabling powers that could be used to enhance those standards where required.

Meghan Gallacher raises an issue that SLE has raised directly with the minister. He has offered to work with others to see whether something can be done on the issue before stage 3. It is a very complex issue—Meghan Gallacher has just laid out but one example of that—which requires careful consideration and, potentially, multiple changes in multiple pieces of law. That is why the minister is keen to carry on that conversation with SLE. We would, of course, be happy to discuss the matter directly with Meghan Gallacher as well.

I was going to talk about that in my very next paragraph. Previously, social landlords were required to meet higher standards for their rented properties than those for private landlords, but the strengthened repairing standard, which was effective from 1 March 2024, has largely aligned the standards across both rented sectors. There are now very limited areas where rented sector standards are not fully aligned, and the Scottish Government has an ambition to ensure full alignment of housing standards in the future.

Adding a further two new housing standards via amendments 257 and 267 would create considerable confusion for landlords, tenants and local authorities as to which standards the landlord must comply with. There are already broad powers to amend the existing standards, and I consider that using those powers would be a more appropriate way to address any gaps that members believe exist in the regulatory requirements.

I am happy to work with Ms Chapman and Ms Burgess, in the run-up to stage 3, on areas where they are concerned that the gap in standards remains between the social and private rented sectors, in order to see whether any changes are required. However, those changes might not need to be made through the bill, as it may be possible to make them in regulation, as I have already mentioned.

Amendments 438, 439, 557 and 558, in the name of Ariane Burgess, would create a power for a local authority to inspect a house that is entered in the landlord register and to impose a fine of up to £10,000 on the landlord if the house does not comply with the tolerable standard.

There are existing enforcement mechanisms for the repairing standard under the 2006 act and for the tolerable standard under the 1987 act. Under the terms of the 2006 act, the First-tier Tribunal can impose a repairing standard enforcement order if a property fails the repairing standard. Under section 30 of the 2006 act, a local authority can issue a works notice if a property is considered to be substandard—a category that would include properties that fail the tolerable standard.

Those enforcement mechanisms build in a period during which the landlord can remedy the defect in a property, and Ms Burgess’s amendments would not afford landlords that period of grace. Furthermore, it is not clear in those amendments whether local authorities would be expected to inspect all private rented tenancies in their areas or to do so only when they had a suspicion that standards were not being complied with. I therefore ask Ms Burgess not to move the amendments, because there are existing measures to deal with those issues and existing powers that can be used to strengthen the repairing standard, the tolerable standard and the inspection process.

I will come back to Ms Gallacher in writing about the consultation, but it will be launched this autumn. I am happy to reflect on the points that she has raised and to get back to her once I have had a further opportunity to speak to Paul McLennan, who leads on the issue, about where the drafting of the consultation has got to, and what its scope will be. If she will allow me to come back to her in writing once I have had those discussions, I will be happy to do so.

Amendments 552 and 555, in the name of Jamie Halcro Johnston, seek to restrict policy making in any future attempt to regulate heating systems. The Government’s approach has long recognised that there might be a need for secondary heating systems, particularly in rural and island communities, and our approach protects the use of direct-emission secondary heating systems if required. For example, the recent new build heat standard already allows for secondary heating systems of the kind specified in amendment 552. It should be made very clear that a vote against that amendment is not a vote against wood-burning stoves or other secondary heating systems, as the amendment is not needed to protect their use.

The fact is that amendments 552 and 555 are simply unnecessary. My concern with them is that they could tie the hands of future Governments, particularly where there remains scope for technological advancement. That is not appropriate, and therefore I cannot support the amendments.

I thank Mr Halcro Johnston for lodging his amendments, because they give me the opportunity to restate the Government’s position on the matter, as set out in the regulations that came before the Parliament very recently.

As I have said, the Government absolutely recognises the need for secondary heating systems, particularly but not only in rural and island communities. The reason for not supporting the amendments is that they are unnecessary—it is not a reflection of any change in or diminution of the Government’s policy in that area. I absolutely reassure Mr Halcro Johnston on that point.

Amendments 470 to 473, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, would require Scottish ministers, in summary, to publish an accessible homes standard, which would include building and design standards for new-build homes. The amendments would also oblige ministers to publish guidance on the design of housing for varying needs; those obligations would require to be met within two years of commencement, and regular review would be required thereafter.

I understand and fully support Ms Duncan-Glancy’s desire to ensure the accessibility and adaptability of Scotland’s homes. Indeed, during the second half of 2023, we consulted on proposals to do just that. Homes have never simply been bricks and mortar; good housing and homes that support our health, wellbeing, life chances and job prospects are integral. Everyone should have a home that brings them those chances and opportunities.

The housing to 2040 strategy committed to developing and introducing an all-tenure Scottish accessible homes standard. We also reaffirmed, within that strategy, our commitment to review the “Housing for Varying Needs” design guide, which, although well regarded and still considered to be a good design benchmark, was produced in 1998. We recognise the urgency of that work, and we remain committed to introducing those changes. The analysis of the responses to the consultation on those matters is now being considered, and it will help inform our next steps.

As a result, the inclusion of amendments 470 and 473 would be premature in advance of full consideration of the feedback from the many respondents who have submitted their views. I assure Ms Duncan-Glancy that, although I oppose her amendments, it is not because the Scottish Government is not supportive of the principles behind them but because we are giving detailed consideration to the consultation feedback at this point. I assure Ms Duncan-Glancy that that important work will not be delayed, because of our work on the housing emergency, for example, and I look forward to engaging the member as we progress matters.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 551 and 561 would oblige Scottish ministers to provide a scheme for adaptations to housing that are intended to improve accessibility. The 2006 act already provides a right for a private tenant to carry out work on their house in order to make it

“suitable for the accommodation, welfare or employment of any disabled person”

who lives there. As the legislative basis for adaptations provision already exists, the amendments are not necessary and, indeed, risk creating a confusing regulatory landscape. Furthermore, we plan to undertake a review of the current housing adaptations system, which will make recommendations on how best to improve and streamline that system and how to target resources better. As the scope of the coverage of the 2006 act will be part of that review, I consider the amendments not to be necessary and therefore cannot support them.

In closing, having addressed all the amendments in the group, I ask the committee to vote for amendment 231, in Paul McLennan’s name, and I ask other members with amendments in the group not to move or press them. If those amendments are moved or pressed, I ask the committee not to vote for them, for the reasons that I have laid out.

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.

As are the members who lodged the amendments in this group, the Government is determined to bring forward a system of rent control that supports the stabilisation of rents for tenants while ensuring that there is a balanced approach that provides appropriate protection for the property rights of landlords and supports investment in the development of rented homes. Although some amendments do not quite strike the balance that is needed, I absolutely recognise the importance of the issues that have been raised—in particular, those that have been raised by Maggie Chapman and Emma Roddick—about the need for tenants to understand their rights and be able to enact those should they so wish. I understand in particular the importance of allowing sufficient time for tenants to challenge a rent increase that they feel is not in line with the rules, as Emma Roddick set out.

That is why we lodged Government amendments 399 and 400, in the name of Paul McLennan, which would affect tenants in properties that are not covered by rent control. Those amendments would increase from 21 days to 30 days the period during which a tenant in an area that is not rent controlled or in an exempt property can refer a proposed increase to the rent officer. The amendments are designed to assist tenants to make use of their rights to challenge a rent increase that they see as excessive. I consider that extending the window to 30 days is a proportionate means of achieving that.

I turn to the amendments that have been lodged by members.

Emma Roddick and Maggie Chapman have set out very strong points on that.

Amendment 138, in the name of Emma Roddick, and amendments 161, 162, 201 and 202, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would extend the length of the period in which a tenant can challenge a rent increase notice. Amendment 138 would give the tenant up to 42 days to notify the landlord that they intend to refer a rent increase to the rent officer, and amendments 161 and 162 would give the tenant up to one year to notify the landlord of an intended referral to the rent officer or tribunal. Amendments 201 and 202 would give the tenant another year to make a referral.

If some of those amendments are agreed to, the tenant would have up to two years to challenge a rent increase notice. That would leave landlords and tenants facing a long period of uncertainty regarding the rent that is applied. Although I agree with the principle that tenants should have sufficient time to challenge an increase, extending the period beyond the current combined period of 63 days could create significant uncertainty for landlords and tenants.

However, I recognise the concerns that members have raised, and I accept that we have perhaps not quite got that balance correct yet, as Emma Roddick has set out. I am happy to discuss with members what might be necessary to ensure that tenants have enough time to challenge the increase but in a way that does not create undue uncertainty for tenants and landlords. Given the Government’s willingness to work through that process with Ms Roddick and Ms Chapman, I ask them not to move their amendments.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 218, 219 and 228 would change the provisions that regulate how frequently the rent may be increased for a property in a rent control area. Where a property in a rent control area is not a previously let property, it is not subject to the rent cap at the start of the tenancy. For those tenancies, the landlord is prevented from increasing the rent in the first 12 months.

The bill sets out a power for ministers to prescribe circumstances in which increases in the first 12 months would be permitted. Amendments 218, 219 and 228 would expand that power to prescribe the circumstances in which the landlord could increase the rent more frequently than once a year, including in circumstances that are considered to be an emergency. The amendments could result in some tenants in a rent control area being subjected to more rent increases more frequently than other tenants. I consider that allowing more frequent rent increases would undermine the intention of the bill’s rent control measures. I therefore urge Rachael Hamilton, or Alexander Stewart on her behalf, not to press amendment 218 or move amendments 219 and 228. If he does so, I urge members not to support them.

Amendment 565, in the name of Mark Griffin, would disapply the rules on rent control for any tenancy in which the landlord is a registered social landlord, a subsidiary of the registered social landlord or any one of three named corporate bodies. I very much recognise that the intention is to exempt mid-market rents, which we have spoken about in relation to amendments in previous groups. Although I acknowledge the need to protect the delivery of such tenancies, that is best done through the consultation that we have previously discussed in committee. For that reason, I cannot support Mr Griffin’s amendment 565, but I encourage the mid-market rent providers to make that exact point in the consultation, because Mr Griffin’s points require further airing during that process.

Absolutely. Mid-market rent and build to rent are among the areas of key focus for other stakeholders, in particular tenants and their representatives, that we have discussed. I assure Meghan Gallacher that work to encourage those exact points to be made is on-going.

Amendment 220, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, would require that rent increase notices for private residential tenancies in rent control areas set out the reasons for the proposed rent increase. It is not clear what benefit that would provide for tenants. Under the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016, a tenant with a private residential tenancy can refer a proposed rent increase to a rent officer for adjudication, and the rent officer will determine the rent with reference to the factors that are set out in the relevant sections of the act. Those factors do not include consideration of the reason for the rent increase.

I am of the view that requiring all landlords with private residential tenancies to provide that information to tenants when increasing the rent would be an unnecessary intrusion into the landlord’s privacy with no obvious benefit to tenants, and there would clearly be an increase in the bureaucracy and requirements for private landlords. In addition, there would be significant resource implications in relation to the administration of such information. I urge her not to move the amendment.

Amendments 494 to 496, in the name of Maggie Chapman, seek to introduce an adjudication process that would include consideration of market rents and property quality when a tenant in a rent control area challenges an increase. Currently, rent increases in rent control areas will be limited in line with the cap, and the reference in the bill to the rent officer is to confirm that that is the case. Ms Chapman’s amendments 497 to 499 are similar to amendments 494 to 496 but would apply in cases in which a landlord or a tenant requests a review of a rent officer’s determination of a proposed increase.

The amendments effectively seek to override the rent cap and would instead create a subjective process that goes beyond the rent cap and the current process of applying open market rent for properties outwith rent control areas. The current proposals are the correct approach and provide clarity to investors and landlords, and I therefore cannot support the amendments.