Chamber and committees

That is an important point. As I said, I could feed in a number of my constituents’ experiences. It is important that, if they wish to do so, all members—not only those who are at committee today—have an opportunity to feed in their constituents’ experiences.

I have also given a lot of thought about how we need to do this work in the round. As Emma Roddick is aware, the Government can carry out consultations in a number of ways, but people need to be able to directly feed their experiences into all such processes. That can sometimes be done through representative bodies, as well as via MSPs, or it can be done directly. We are happy to look at that, while recognising that how we do it will impact how long the review might take. However, people’s experiences are an important aspect that we need to take account of. Sadly, I recognise the experiences that Emma Roddick has laid out today.

If I might continue, convener, as I am not finished—I nearly am.

I turn to amendment 514, in the name of Mark Griffin. The current position is, rightly, that discretion sits with the tribunal to consider on a case-by-case basis what it determines to be a reasonable payment to a home owner. I am not aware of issues of property factors being required to make excessive payments as a result of an enforcement order. It is therefore unclear to me why Mr Griffin wishes to restrict the tribunal’s discretion, so I cannot support amendment 514.

Amendment 415, in the name of Sarah Boyack, highlights an important point in relation to property factor registration. I am sympathetic to what the amendment seeks to do, but it is premature to make such changes at this stage, given the need to consult stakeholders and consider the wider work that is under way, such as the Scottish Law Commission’s work. I therefore cannot support amendment 415, but I have written to Ms Boyack on the matter.

I appreciate the intent behind amendments 476 and 476A, in the names of Pam Duncan-Glancy and Mark Griffin respectively. However, I am concerned that they could have significant impacts on local authorities and subsequent effects on the services that are provided to owners. As no consultation has taken place, it is not clear how many communities might find themselves in such situations and what the costs for local authorities might be. For those reasons, I cannot support amendments 476 or 476A without further engagement.

I therefore ask Mark Griffin not to press amendment 507. I ask him, Ariane Burgess, Sarah Boyack and Pam Duncan-Glancy to work with me on the wider work to review the property factor system and engage with stakeholders that I have committed to do in the round. I also ask them not to move the other amendments in the group. If they are moved and pressed, I urge members to reject them for the reasons that I have given.

I reassure Rachael Hamilton that I absolutely share her endeavour to ensure that we deliver more homes, particularly in rural areas. The Government and the Minister for Housing were already looking at permitted development rights before the amendments were lodged; the issue was very much on his radar.

My concern is that permitted development rights are an exceptionally powerful tool. That means that, if we are to grant those rights, we must consider very seriously the implications of doing so and, indeed, the difficulty of ever taking them away, and that is why the best way to do this, even if we include the aspect that Rachael Hamilton might wish to bring in, is through consultation and secondary legislation to allow that work to continue. Permitted development rights are an exceptionally powerful part of the planning system, and I am loth for this to be done, regardless of the issue, without consultation taking place to allow people to have their say.

I recognise the intent behind many of the amendments in the grouping and I appreciate that difficulties are being experienced by some who are in the property factors system. As Mark Griffin mentioned, members will have knowledge of that from their constituency work, as do I.

However, the amendments that are proposed are very wide ranging and pick out a number of discrete topics across what is a complex and interconnected system. Although I am sympathetic to what members are trying to achieve and the constituency cases that I am sure lie behind many of the amendments, I am concerned about considering issues in isolation from one another and from the wider system. I am also mindful that we have not engaged widely with stakeholders on the issues.

Instead of working in a potentially piecemeal way, I would like to look at any issues in the round and engage with stakeholders to review the system in its entirety to identify what improvements can be made. I wish to take the time to do that work properly and would welcome members contributing to it, instead of pressing forward with the range of amendments that are before us today.

I begin with amendment 507, in the name of Mark Griffin, which would require additional information to be included as part of an application to be a registered property factor. Although I appreciate that the intent is to strengthen the application process, I am not clear on the value that such additional information would provide beyond what is already in the code of conduct, with which all registered property factors must comply, and what property factor enforcement orders already allow for. As those existing provisions appear to be operating as intended, I cannot support the amendment without hearing further from stakeholders on the issues.

I turn to the Government’s amendments in the name of Paul McLennan. Amendments 387 to 392 and 397 modify the existing property factor registration regime to make it work more coherently and effectively. In particular, they clarify when a property factor number is to be disclosed; adjust matters to be considered as part of the fit-and-proper-person test; expand powers to remove property factors from the property factor register when the factor no longer exists; clarify the duty to notify property factors who have been removed from the register in cases where that is not currently possible; require refusals and removals to be noted on the register; allow property factors to seek removal from the register; and confer additional enforcement powers. The amendments will improve the registration scheme and I urge members to support them so that improvements can be brought forward before the review that I mentioned earlier.

It is not clear how amendments 508 and 513, in the name of Mark Griffin, would benefit the system overall. Scottish ministers have the responsibility to assess whether applicants are fit and proper for registration, and consideration is based on all relevant circumstances. The First-tier Tribunal would not have access to the full range of material that is used to determine whether someone is a fit and proper person to carry out property factoring, so amendment 508 would narrow the scope of the fit-and-proper-person test, which would have potentially negative implications for factors’ businesses and for home owners. I therefore cannot support the amendments without more understanding of what is behind them.

I turn to amendments 509 to 511, which relate to provision of certain information to home owners. It is my view that the code of conduct for property factors already caters for what the amendments propose. The code covers how fees, charges and works that have already been undertaken or are to be undertaken are handled and communicated, and how factors will co-operate with another factor to allow for a smooth transfer. Without hearing wider views, I am therefore unclear what the amendments would add to the requirements that are already in place. I cannot therefore support the amendments at this time.

On amendment 512, in the name of Mark Griffin, I note that it is already possible for individuals to search whether a property factor is registered to provide services in Scotland, who the property factor is for a certain property or area of land and the latest number of properties that a property factor manages. As already explained, amendment 390, in the name of Paul McLennan, would place a new duty on Scottish ministers to keep a note in the register of any refusal

“to enter a person in the register”

and of any removal from the register

“for the period of 3 years”,

which I hope will reassure Mr Griffin on the matter behind his amendment. Scottish ministers can provide guidance and publish information that they deem appropriate without the need for the amendment. For that reason, I do not support it.

I appreciate the aim of amendments 504 and 517, in the name of Ariane Burgess, but there are already means by which such attention is brought, in the form of evidence gathered by Scottish ministers through compliance monitoring activity, which can and is frequently informed by home owner reports, and by notice from the First-tier Tribunal that a property factor enforcement order has not been complied with. Without further discussion, it is therefore not clear what improvements the amendments would bring, so I cannot support them.

I turn to amendments 505 and 518, also in the name of Ariane Burgess. Amendment 505 would lower the current upper legal threshold that is required for property owners to dismiss a property manager and appoint someone else from “two thirds” to “a majority”,

“unless the title deeds ... provide a lower threshold”.

Existing provision is intended to ensure that title deeds do not impose an unreasonably high threshold to dismiss the manager, such as requiring a unanimous vote. Title deeds can, however, specify a lower threshold, such as a simple majority. When title deeds are silent, existing legislation provides a default rule that allows a simple majority to dismiss the manager.

When the Scottish Government last consulted on that issue in 2013, a majority of respondents did not favour reducing the threshold. Given the changes to the sector since then, it is important that we take time to look at the matter as part of a wider review, as I mentioned earlier. Removal of a property factor is, of course, the final step to address underperformance. So that we can better understand the issue, how it sits in the wider property factor system and any unintended consequences of the proposed changes, I ask Ariane Burgess not to move the amendments.

On amendment 506, in the name of Mark Griffin, I recognise, as I have said, that some users of the system are experiencing difficulties, and I have committed to working with members and stakeholders to consider those in the round, taking the time to do so properly. The amendment would drive too short a timeframe for work of that nature and set a particular scope before we have had time to consider matters. For that reason, I cannot support it, but I emphasise my offer to engage with members and stakeholders to look at the system in the round.

Amendment 568, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, would require the Scottish ministers to review, within two years of the bill receiving royal assent,

“the assessment and classification of properties which could be used as housing, for the purpose of liability for non-domestic rates.”

It would prescribe the factors to be considered in carrying out the review, and would require that ministers publish and lay before Parliament a report that includes a statement of what action, if any, is to be taken.

Although the amendment might be intended to target in particular the assessment and classification of self-catering holiday accommodation, which in many—but not all—cases could be used as housing, other types of property would also be subject to review. For instance, hotels, aparthotels, guest houses, bed and breakfasts, caravans, timeshares and show homes are all potentially suitable for providing housing. The valuation of all non-domestic property, including the classification of properties on the valuation roll, is a matter for Scottish assessors, who are independent of central and local Government.

Assessors carry out regular revaluations of non-domestic properties, and the next revaluation is on 1 April 2026, when the values of all non-domestic properties on the valuation roll will be updated to reflect current market conditions. Assessors are currently collecting relevant information to help to inform that revaluation.

Self-catering accommodation properties are also subject to an annual audit to ensure that they meet the requirements that classify them as self-catering holiday accommodation that is liable for non-domestic rates rather than for council tax. The requirement that owners or occupiers of self-catering properties prove an intention to let for 140 days in the year and evidence of actual letting for 70 days was introduced in 2022, in response to a recommendation of the independent Barclay review, to prevent the owners of second homes or empty homes seeking to have their accommodation classed as non-domestic in order to avoid paying council tax.

Where a property is not determined to be self-catering holiday accommodation for the purposes of non-domestic rates, it will be removed from the valuation roll, and liability to pay council tax will arise.

The independence of assessors and valuation is critical for the credibility of the non-domestic rates system. The Scottish Government keeps all non-domestic rates policies under review. Therefore, I ask the member not to press amendment 568.

I appreciate the need for movement. As I mentioned at a previous meeting, the Government will work on a number of areas between stages 2 and 3, and we will be undertaking work on other areas after the bill is—I hope—passed by the Parliament.

Once stage 2 is over and I have a full understanding of all the work that I have offered to undertake, I intend to write back to the committee to detail the prioritisation and the timescales on those points, so that the committee can take a view on whether it will potentially have different priorities and suggestions.

If Mr Griffin will forgive me, the only reason that I will not suggest a date at that point is that I will wrap it into all the work that I have suggested we progress on the bill, which will allow the committee to have a view of the priorities that the Government will set as part of that process. He might wish to suggest that the issue is more of a priority than some of the other work that we have done, but, if he will forgive me for not putting a timescale on it today, that is the way that I intend to take the issue forward.

In his opening remarks, Willie Rennie mentioned that the private rented sector is part of the solution. I agree that it is an integral part of our housing system, and that goes all the way from some of the larger investors in the build-to-rent market to smaller landlords who might have only one or a few properties.

I turn to the basis of Mr Rennie’s amendments, and I welcome the discussions that I have had with him on them. I want to update him and the committee on discussions that have taken place at the housing to 2040 board. It met on 26 March to discuss the private rented sector and the need for a strategy, and only yesterday it looked at a paper that set out consideration of that new strategy, which was presented by the Chartered Institute of Housing.

The board agreed to return to the issue at its next meeting after the CIH had discussed how best to take forward the scope of and timescales for the strategy with other members of the board, along with Scottish Government officials. I look forward to that discussion happening at the next board meeting.

The board is best placed to support the consideration of the future strategic direction of the private rented sector and the timing of that work in the context of the on-going housing emergency. I am pleased to say that that work has begun.

We are determined to drive down the poverty rates for the priority groups—and to drive down all the statistics that are set out in our child poverty delivery plans. We will ensure that we do everything that we can to support the six priority family groups. However, there is a challenge, which I have to come back to: if policies elsewhere are pushing some of those priority groups into poverty, it makes the situation more challenging. I recognise the importance of parental employability schemes in addressing that, but that is exactly why they are there—to provide wraparound support for lone parents in that area.

With all these areas, there is a policy consideration about whether to have universal or targeted support. That has been discussed in the past, particularly in relation to school meals. I go back to the point about why universalism is an important policy for certain aspects such as free school meals. That speaks to the stigma when children and their families speak about not being the “free school meals kid” and not being seen to be separate or different from other children. Although it is exceptionally important to take into account the cost of a policy and the fact that it might benefit people who could otherwise afford it, it is also important to bear in mind the evidence and lived experience of children who talk about how important it is that everyone is treated the same and for there not to be a stigma. That is another important consideration.

You are absolutely right that it is one of those areas where people have differing views, but the universalism of free school meals is based on attempting to help with the stigma that children often feel.

It is important that we look at the evidence to demonstrate impact, which is why the modelling that was published in March estimates that Scottish Government policies will keep 70,000 children out of relative poverty in 2025-26, with poverty rates that are 7 percentage points lower than they otherwise would have been. In particular, you mentioned the Scottish child payment. It is estimated that it alone will keep 40,000 children out of relative poverty this year. It is important that we consider the difference that that can make to families.

Clearly, it is more challenging to demonstrate the impact of some smaller policies on child poverty rates, but we can look at the impact that they can have on, for example, how much money a family can save. We have estimates for how much families can save because of free school meals and other policies that, in total, we would call the social contract, or our cost of living guarantee, as well as through the provision of funding for early learning and childcare. As well as looking at the evidence on how many children can be kept out of poverty, we look at the money that families can save through particular policies. We would be happy to provide more of that information in writing, should it be useful to the committee.