Chamber and committees

I thank all members who have lodged amendments in the group for the discussions that I have had with them in the run-up to today, which have informed the Government’s thinking greatly. I apologise in advance for the length of my speaking note on the group, but it covers a number of amendments that have been lodged by different members, so I ask colleagues to bear with me.

I will first address amendment 231, in the name of Paul McLennan, which will enable Awaab’s law to be introduced in Scotland. I will also comment on the related amendments that have been lodged by Graham Simpson and Emma Roddick.

The Scottish Government is committed to delivering Awaab’s law in Scotland, and I consider that amendment 231, coupled with the use of powers in existing legislation to make provision for the private sector, will achieve that aim. The amendment will enable the Government to implement the equivalent of Awaab’s law in Scotland in the social rented sector, so that social landlords must deal with issues such as damp and mould in tenants’ homes in a timely manner. The amendment will expand existing powers in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 to give ministers the ability to impose timeframes on social landlords to investigate disrepair and commence repairs.

For context, I note that Awaab’s law in England will have 28 defined hazards. The UK Government has been taking a phased approach since Awaab’s law was introduced, in July 2023. We want to ensure that landlords and tenants are clear about their respective rights and duties, which is why we will have further engagement with stakeholders later this year to fully understand the types of repairs that should be included, as well as appropriate timescales for investigating and commencing those repairs. Members have rightly referred to damp and mould, but other hazards will also be addressed in the consultation.

As well as placing requirements on social landlords, Scottish ministers are committed to bringing forward equivalent requirements in the private rented sector after further consultation. Those can be delivered under existing powers via the repairing standard in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006, which is why no similar amendment has been lodged for the private rented sector. However, I stress that we are consulting not on the “if” but on the “how”, as per social rented sector amendments that we will then take forward.

The issues that have arisen in England, which have been raised in the consultation, demonstrate why consultation is required. It is an exceptionally complex situation. To take just one issue, we want to make sure that the timescales are as stringent as possible but we do not want to set unrealistic timetables that a good landlord would be genuinely unable to meet. If you will forgive me, Maggie, I hope that the rest of my speaking note will deal with some of the details. If it does not, I will certainly be happy to discuss the matter further with you.

I cannot support the related amendments that have been lodged by Graham Simpson and Emma Roddick. Mr Simpson’s amendment 231A would change amendment 231 so that the power to make regulations would become a duty. That would require the Scottish ministers to make regulations on every issue in section 27(3) of the 2001 act, although it may be necessary to cover only some of those issues. A technical point is that it is not entirely within the gift of Scottish ministers to make regulations that are subject to the affirmative procedure, as those regulations first have to be approved by the Parliament.

Mr Simpson’s amendment 231B is already catered for by amendment 231, which enables provisions to be made in connection with the right of a tenant to have qualifying repairs carried out, including provision that may require the inspection and approval of any repairs to address issues relating to damp or mould. However, from my conversations with Mr Simpson—for which I thank him—I appreciate that he remains concerned that there is still a gap in the Government’s amendments. I am convinced that there is not, but I believe that there is room for discussion, because he and I are very much on the same page of wanting to make sure that the system is as robust as possible. I am therefore happy to work with him in the run-up to stage 3 if I cannot convince him that no change is required.

Amendment 443, in the name of Graham Simpson, would oblige the Scottish ministers to lay draft regulations under section 27 of the 2001 act within six months of amendment 231 coming into force. That would remove Scottish ministers’ discretion, thereby restricting our ability to consult meaningfully with stakeholders and engage with the UK Government. I believe that there would be a great danger of making poor regulations as a result of a lack of meaningful and robust consultation.

Amendments 444 and 446, in the name of Graham Simpson, would oblige the Scottish ministers to make regulations to ensure that, in relation to damp or mould, private landlords would be under repairing obligations equivalent to those of social landlords. Emma Roddick’s amendment 444A would require those regulations to include a process whereby a private landlord would have to make a compensatory payment to tenants if they had failed to meet their repairing obligations. Amendments 444, 444A and 446 are not necessary, as powers in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 and the 2006 act already enable existing private sector standards to be modified, enabling the introduction of Awaab’s law. The repairing standard can already be enforced via a rent relief order, which compensates a tenant with a rent reduction if their house fails the repairing standards.

I appreciate that I have already spoken for some time. I reassure Graham Simpson that I very much support the policy intent behind many of the amendments, but I do not think that they are required. There are other ways to achieve that policy intent. I would like to offer that slight caveat to the point that he has made.

I am particularly keen to work together in this area. I am in no way saying that Government drafting is perfect and, as the minister, I take responsibility for that, because it is for me to sign that off.

In relation to amendment 231, I think that we have the issue covered, but the discussions that we have had so far show that there is still disagreement about whether it is covered. Based on those discussions, I believe that we genuinely want to get to the same point, and I would be happy to work with Mr Simpson on that. If there are gaps, I am absolutely determined to close them before stage 3, because there is no point going through all this work if we do not get as robust a system as possible. I thank Mr Simpson for lodging his amendments so that we can absolutely test the proposals to breaking point to find out whether there are any gaps.

I thank the member for the interesting conversations that we have had on the matter. I reassure him that, as I understand it, a consultation on CPOs will start in September this year—I will get back to the member on the timing if I have not quite remembered it correctly.

The member has raised an interesting point about how the approach can go further, whether through compulsory sales orders or compulsory leasing orders, which have been discussed in other areas when we have looked at ways of tackling the housing emergency. All that is of interest to the Government.

I very much agree with the member that, although Glasgow has been at the forefront of using CPOs—indeed, a lot of local authorities can learn from what it has been doing—we can clearly do more in that area.

I am keen to work with Mr Sweeney on some of the points that have been raised in this discussion. I am not sure that the issue requires legislation, but his points about the best use of the current housing stock, and particularly about growing that housing stock, are exceptionally telling regarding his interest in Glasgow and will also have benefits further afield. I am keen to carry on discussions about what more can be done.

In a rent control area, a landlord will be prevented from increasing the rent under a private residential tenancy for the property more than once in a 12-month period, even if a new tenancy is granted in that time. Accordingly, tenants who are considering entering into a lease in a rent control area should have the information that they need to make informed decisions about renting a property. Therefore, the Scottish Government has lodged amendments 354 to 361 in relation to information that landlords must include in rental adverts for properties in rent control areas, unless those properties are exempt from rent control.

Together, amendments 355 and 358 will ensure that information about rent increases in the previous 12-month period and the most recent rent payable for the property is available to tenants who are looking to rent in a rent control area. That will help tenants to understand the earliest date on which the rent can be increased, which is an essential part of ensuring that the rent is applied correctly between tenancies. Amendment 360 will help a landlord to understand whether a previous rent increase is a relevant rent increase for the purposes of these advertisement requirements. That will also support the provision of the correct information in adverts.

Amendments 356, 357 and 359 require the advert to highlight to prospective tenants that the rent at the start of the lease may be different from the rent specified in the advert if there is a variation in the percentage change in the consumer prices index before the start of the lease. That change is necessary as a consequence of the amendments to set out a CPI-based rent cap formula in the bill, which were debated in group 5. These amendments will enhance the effective operation of the rent control measures in the bill and will ensure that tenants have the information that they need in order to exercise their rights and make informed decisions about taking on a tenancy.

Amendment 422, in the name of Mark Griffin, would require the provision of an inventory to all tenants before a tenancy commences. The provision of inventories is already common practice in the private rented sector, and, in instances in which a letting agent deals with a tenancy check-in, it is a requirement under the code of practice unless otherwise agreed in writing with the landlord. The Scottish Government’s easy-read notes, which must accompany the PRT model tenancy agreement, encourage landlords and tenants to create a detailed written inventory and schedule of condition at tenancy commencement. Therefore, the need for a statutory requirement is unclear. In addition, although it is in the best interests of tenants and landlords for an inventory to be completed, there would be difficulties involved in enforcing any mandatory requirement. I therefore ask the member not to move the amendment

Amendments 247 and 248, in the name of Daniel Johnson, would require private landlords, under a private residential tenancy, and social landlords, under a social tenancy, to provide tenants with information on the rent that is payable in each of the previous 36 months. Although I recognise the calls for improved data on rent to be made available, these amendments are not necessary. For the private rented sector, information on the previous rent payable is required by tenants only where a rent control area is in place and would be unnecessary for other tenants. We have already made provision, as part of rent control measures and through our own amendments, to ensure that tenants have the information that they need to know, such as when the first rent increase might take place. That will allow people to consider whether they want to take a tenancy on.

Where a tenancy is not in a rent control area, increases in rent are restricted to once in a 12-month period, and my amendments would prevent rent increases within the first 12 months of the tenancy. In addition, section 11 of the 2016 act already allows ministers to impose a duty on landlords or prospective landlords to provide the tenant with information as specified in regulations, should that be required in the future.

In the social rented sector, information on rents is already publicly available to tenants and prospective tenants on the Scottish Housing Regulator’s website, through its landlord comparison tool. That enables a tenant or anyone with an interest to check the average rent of different sizes of landlords’ homes from 2014-15 onwards. Information on the regulator’s annual reports for each landlord also includes the average percentage increase in weekly rent for each year. Social rented sector tenants also have a right, under the 2001 act, to request information on their landlord’s policy and procedure in relation to the setting of rent and other charges, and the landlord has to provide that.

Therefore, amendments 247 and 248 are not required, and I ask the member not to press them.

Amendment 273, in the name of Maggie Chapman, seeks to introduce additional information that a landlord must provide to tenants alongside their written terms of tenancy before the day on which a new tenancy commences. I agree that it is vital that tenants are aware of and empowered to utilise their rights, including having access to relevant information that may affect their tenancy. Existing statutory requirements require specified information to be provided by the landlord free of charge to tenants at the point at which their tenancy commences. In addition, existing regulation-making powers in the 2016 act enable ministers to set out further information that must be provided by a landlord to a tenant. In my view, it is more appropriate to use those existing powers than to insert new requirements in the bill.

I have very little to say in winding up, but I recognise that we will need to raise awareness of new rights and changes and update tenancy documents and information as part of the implementation of the bill, should it be passed by the Parliament. Clearly, further signposting can be provided at this point. Although I do not agree with Maggie Chapman’s amendments, I think that she raises a very important point about ensuring that the tenant has the right information and that they obtain it in an appropriate timeframe. That is an important part of the work that we will need to look at in implementing the bill.

I press amendment 354.

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.