Chamber and committees

We do. The only potential difference is that I would consider whether we need to do something new or to ensure that what we have in place is robust and working for all those who require it.

That brings me to Ross Greer’s amendments 189 and 195. I would be grateful if Graham Simpson would allow me to discuss those now, because I will then wrap up and talk about the potential way forward for Mr Greer’s amendments and Mr Simpson’s amendments together.

Ross Greer’s amendments 189 and 195 provide for the establishment of a rent guarantor scheme for estranged young people. I am sympathetic to the outcomes that he seeks to achieve. However, that situation would be complex and it would have ongoing, unknown financial implications. Given that a number of rent guarantor schemes already exist across Scotland, which are operated by universities, local authorities and charities, I am not convinced that setting up a new scheme via a public body would be the best way to deliver increased support for estranged young people.

However, I recognise the concern that Ross Greer has and I see the gaps that he has alluded to in the current set-up. Dealing with that is particularly important, but not only for estranged young people.

I would indeed, and my very next paragraph was to say that the aspects that Willie Rennie, Meghan Gallacher and now Ross Greer have mentioned reiterate a concern from the Church of Scotland. I appreciate its desire to make its housing stock available to assist with the housing emergency where possible and I am keen to have those discussions with the Church of Scotland to ensure that we can work through its concerns. I hope that that will provide the reassurance that we all want to see and that I believe to be the intent behind the amendments. I am happy for those discussions to take place between the Church of Scotland and me and my officials.

Amendment 187, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would insert into the 2016 act a new section that would extend notice periods for ending a tenancy, for example, when there are rent arrears, to four months rather than the current 28 days, or to 12 months rather than the current 84 days, when the landlord is ending the tenancy in order to sell, or the property is to be sold by the lender. That change would make it harder for a landlord who needed to sell a property due to financial hardship; it would delay the sale for a substantial period and contribute to that hardship. It would also mean that a landlord could not end a tenancy quickly when there was antisocial behaviour or the property had been abandoned. Scottish ministers are committed to a wider review of repossession grounds, and that issue is best considered as part of that work. Again, I appreciate what Maggie Chapman is looking to do with her amendments, but I am concerned about their unintended consequences.

I am sure that we will come to that question during the review of repossession grounds, when we will get into the details of those aspects. We cannot sort out the details of that issue in the bill, but we will clearly have to look at it.

Again, I make the point that there is no point in having those aspects in legislation if we are not able to make use of them, whether because of monitoring or other areas where there are gaps in implementation. We must look at the use of the legislation, and awareness of rights is a key aspect of that. The monitoring is indeed challenging.

Amendments 522 and 564, in the name of Emma Roddick, would provide for a new appeal route if a private landlord withdraws consent for a pet because the tenant has not complied with the reasonable conditions imposed. There exist routes of recourse in the private rented sector through the First-tier Tribunal in relation to a breach of the tenancy agreement, which could be used in those circumstances.

Although I think that the amendments are unnecessary, I appreciate the member’s desire for clarity on the issue, because it is an exceptionally important point. Guidance for tenants and landlords will be important in supporting those new rights, and further support on that type of issue will be addressed through that guidance. I give Emma Roddick reassurance on that point and therefore ask her not to press amendment 522 and not to move amendment 564.

Emma Roddick’s amendment 259 and Maggie Chapman’s amendment 263, and her associated amendments 260, 261, 264 and 265, would allow private and social tenants to keep an assistance animal without the landlord’s consent. While I am sympathetic to the sought outcome, I do not think that the amendments are necessary, because a disabled tenant can already ask a landlord to keep an assistance animal. If the tenant requires any such animal, such a request cannot be unreasonably refused. Under the Equality Act 2010, that is known as making a “reasonable adjustment”. The amendments are likely to confuse matters as they do not take account of other tenants’ needs or the property’s suitability. We can address the issue that Maggie Chapman has raised today around guidance, and it is now easier to seek redress through the tribunal. I recognise the concerns that Maggie Chapman has raised, but I suggest that there is another way to address them.

The tenant can appeal an unreasonable refusal, so I hope that that reassures Maggie Chapman that they would have the ability to appeal. As an animal lover and a pet owner, I am concerned that we would be asking people to have to rehome their pets or to find them alternative accommodation, when those pets are, in effect, members of their family. The issues that are raised with assumed consent would be quite concerning for the tenant and, indeed, the pet.

Amendments 524 to 527 in the name of Emma Roddick would remove the ability of a tenant to seek redress where a landlord has failed to respond to a pet request. I understand that the amendments intend to support the effective operation of the deemed consent model that is proposed under amendment 25. I have already set out my concerns about the risks that that model would create, and I do not think that that is the right way to deliver improved rights in this area. I ask the member not to move her amendments.

I recognise that, which is why am more than happy to work with you and Maggie Chapman on the timings for how long some of the decisions can, and should, take. I appreciate the support that a person can draw from the company of their pet, and that the costs that would be incurred by placing them in a cattery or kennels can be quite substantial, even over a short period of time. As I have set out, although there are reasons for the timings that the Government has proposed, Emma Roddick’s and Maggie Chapman’s amendments have importantly highlighted the issues and that we do not have the balance correct. I am more than happy to see what can be done before stage 3 in order to try to alleviate some of the concerns and to assist with the points that Emma Roddick has just made.

Amendment 370 in the name of Paul McLennan is a minor technical amendment correcting a previous typo, which makes no change to the effect of the provision.

Amendments 168 to 172 and amendments 180 to 182, in the name of Edward Mountain, relate to reasonable conditions for approval to keep a pet. I recognise that Mr Mountain is seeking to provide greater clarity and certainty in the bill with regard to ensuring that ministers make use of the regulation-making powers that the bill provides for and on some of the detail that they should cover. For example, that would include setting out that it would be a reasonable condition for approval for the landlord to require the tenant to have the property professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy.

I note that, in order to make those additional rights operational, regulations will need to be introduced to set out further detail. The details of what would be considered an unreasonable refusal or reasonable conditions for approval must be developed in consultation with landlords, tenants and other relevant stakeholders. I firmly believe that that is the right approach, and that is why the bill specifically includes statutory provisions that require consultation for the exercise of the regulation-making powers under the affirmative procedure. We will include in that work the aspects that are highlighted by these amendments, and I therefore ask Mr Mountain not to move them.

Amendments 26 and 27, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would amend the bill so that the Scottish ministers “must” make use of the regulation-making powers in the bill to set out when it is reasonable for a landlord to refuse to consent to a tenant keeping a pet. I can reassure members of the committee that, although the provisions as drafted use the word “may”, making use of the regulation-making powers will be an essential part of the bill’s implementation. Effective guidance will be essential to the successful implementation of those measures, as will ensuring that landlords are provided with sufficient information to inform their decisions. I therefore ask the member not to move those amendments.

I turn to the other amendments in the group, which are in the name of Emma Roddick. Amendments 528 and 529 seek to provide greater clarity and certainty in the bill. Current provisions in the bill already mean that refusal and any consent conditions must be reasonable—which is the appropriate test—and amendment 528 is therefore not needed.

Amendment 529 includes aspects that the regulations may cover, and I do not believe that the amendment is necessary either. As I have made clear, we are committed to consulting further with landlords and tenants on the detail that should be included in regulations under the affirmative procedure, in order to support the operation of the new rights. There is already a duty in the bill in connection with that, and I can reassure members that the aspects that are covered in the amendment will also form part of that work.

On that basis, I ask Ms Roddick not to move amendments 528 and 529.

Amendments 530 and 531 relate to the refusal of a request to keep a pet by a social landlord. They would make it a condition that landlord refusal is

“necessary and proportionate”

and that there is

“clear reasoning or supporting evidence”.

A tenant who is unhappy about the landlord’s decision to refuse their request can appeal using the landlord’s complaints process, and has a further route of redress beyond that to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. I believe that any additional conditions for refusal are best developed, once again, through consultation and engagement with the sector and set through secondary legislation.

Amendment 533 seeks to provide that, where a social landlord fails to respond to a pet request within the period required, the landlord is “deemed to have consented”. What the member is seeking is provided for by new paragraph 8H, which is inserted into the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 by section 30(3) of the bill. On that basis, I do not think that anything more is needed to deliver what is being sought, and I therefore ask Emma Roddick not to move the amendment.

Amendments 534 and 563 would provide for a new appeal route if a social landlord withdraws consent for a pet because the tenant has not complied with the reasonable conditions imposed. All social landlords provide their tenants with a written tenancy agreement, which sets out their tenancy obligations, including the conditions to which the tenant is required to adhere in relation to keeping pets. Any breach of tenancy conditions could result in appropriate and proportionate action being taken by the landlord, which could include, where necessary, withdrawal of consent to keep a pet.

I believe that, if any changes are required to the existing process for withdrawal of consent by social landlords, those are best developed through consultation and engagement with the sector, and set through secondary legislation, following public and parliamentary scrutiny. I therefore ask Ms Roddick not to move the amendments.

In summary, for the reasons that I have set out, I ask Emma Roddick, Maggie Chapman and Edward Mountain not to press or move their amendments in the group.

I turn to amendments 173 to 179, in the name of Edward Mountain, in relation to making changes to let property.

Amendment 173 places a statutory duty on a tenant who has made a category 1 or category 2 change to a let property to ensure that the property is returned to its original state at the end of the tenancy, unless the landlord agrees otherwise. That might discourage some tenants from making use of their right to make changes to the let property, and even perceived improvements might have to be stripped back if the landlord did not agree that they could remain, with no test of the reasonableness or proportionality of that requirement. Measures in the bill enable the Scottish ministers, following consultation, to set out through regulation a non-exhaustive list of reasonable conditions that a landlord might set, where they consent to a category 2 change, such as reinstatement at the end of a tenancy, where it was reasonable in the circumstances to do so. Where a tenant did not view that as a reasonable condition, they would have a route of redress through the tribunal.

In relation to amendments 174 to 179, I recognise that Mr Mountain is seeking to provide greater clarity and certainty in the bill as well as to ensure that ministers make use of the regulation-making powers. I reassure committee members that, although the current drafting of the provisions uses the word “may”, making use of these regulation-making powers will be an essential part of the implementation. The framework that relates to personalisation would require that detail be filled in via regulations in order to set out the pertinent definitions.

I understand that landlords and tenants will be keen to understand what it will be possible to do without consent under category 1—for example, putting up a picture—and what will fall under category 2, such as painting walls, which will need consent. However, I am clear that it is essential that the detail of the types of changes that fall into each category is best developed through consultation and engagement with the sector and set through secondary legislation. That is why the bill specifically includes statutory provisions that require consultation for the exercise of the regulation-making powers under the affirmative procedure. That will ensure that we take account of landlords’ and tenants’ views. It will also ensure further public and parliamentary scrutiny of how the powers are used.

Amendment 252, in the name of Maggie Chapman, seeks to set out some of the detail of category 1 changes that would not require the landlord’s permission. The amendment is exceptionally broad in scope and would allow for a very broad range of changes to the outside of a property without the landlord’s involvement. Although I recognise that the member has specified in the amendment that the change must be reasonable, as these would be category 1 changes, the landlord would have no ability to prevent the change, if given prior knowledge, or recourse, where they did not view the change as reasonable after it was carried out.

When providing new rights to tenants, legislation must strike the right balance with the rights of landlords. Amendment 252 would not do that, so I cannot support it. The detail of the changes that are to be included in categories 1 and 2 are best provided through the secondary legislation that I have mentioned and developed through consultation with landlords and tenants. Existing measures in the bill provide the framework for that, and that is the right way to facilitate greater rights for tenants while respecting landlords’ rights.

Amendment 262, which is also in the name of Maggie Chapman, sets out a broad range of changes that a disabled tenant or a tenant who is a guardian or carer of a disabled member of the household could make without needing permission. I am very sympathetic to the outcome that Ms Chapman is seeking to achieve and I, too, wish to see the lives of disabled tenants, guardians and carers made easier. However, as with amendment 252, this amendment would allow for a broad range of potentially very significant changes to a let property without any involvement of the landlord. Setting that out in the bill without consultation or engagement on the provisions with tenants and landlords would not enable us to ensure that we have the right balance between the respective rights.

Existing measures in the bill provide the overarching framework that is needed for us to get this right. As I indicated, further consultation is required to inform the types of changes that would fall into categories 1 and 2. The regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which will ensure additional scrutiny from Parliament. That is the best way to deliver rights in the area while ensuring that they are compatible with landlords’ rights.

I therefore ask the members not to press the amendments in this group.

I thank Mr Fraser for giving me the opportunity to come back in. The case that he raises is a concern. Members who have sat through numerous groups of amendments to the bill know that we have had several discussions about the current law, but my speaking notes have never just said that the current law is there and therefore there is not a problem. The current law is there, but it is not working for the residents, which is clearly an issue in this area.

I mentioned that the Minister for Housing had written to all councils, but it is important that we seek further reassurance—both for Mr Fraser and, importantly, for the residents who have raised these issues—hear the feedback on the minister’s letter and see whether further work is being done on the matter. I recognise the concern that Murdo Fraser rightly raises, and the quote from the council shows, if it needed to be shown, that more work needs to be done.

I will not say any more about Murdo Fraser’s amendments that I spoke about earlier, but on amendment 22, I appreciate his point about the time that it might take if the issue moves forward to further consultation, further work and a new legislative vehicle. I cannot deny any of that.

On two issues, specialist work needs to be done. The Mobile Homes Act 1983 covers Gypsy Traveller sites. In particular, where those are socially provided, we will want to consider what is best to ensure that the rights of that community are upheld and strengthened as appropriate. I appreciate that Mr Fraser comes with particular cases from his constituency work, but that other aspect is important to recognise.

Furthermore, it might not be appropriate for all case types under the 1983 act to move to the tribunal. For example, cases that relate to evictions from social housing are dealt with by the courts, so we will need to consider whether the same should apply to evictions under the 1983 act.

As I said, I am very sympathetic to where Murdo Fraser is coming from, but it is a complex area of legislation, particularly because of the equalities issues and the read-across to other housing legislation. Therefore, I am still unable to support amendment 22.

Amendment 386 agreed to.

Section 46, as amended, agreed to.

Section 47 agreed to.

After section 47

Amendment 21 not moved.

Amendment 22 moved—[Murdo Fraser].

I support amendment 458 in the name of Evelyn Tweed, which creates an independent appeals process for decisions by the Scottish Housing Regulator. Although the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 established a statutory right of appeal to the Court of Session for specific decisions of the regulator, it did not establish any wider specific statutory right of appeal against its regulatory decisions. The current non-statutory appeals process that the regulator developed therefore goes as far as the regulator can legally go. Evelyn Tweed’s amendment establishes an effective framework for the review and independent appeal of regulatory decisions, and I welcome that it has received support from the sector.

I understand the intentions behind Mark Griffin’s amendment 271, which would require the Scottish Housing Regulator to collect and publish information. However, the regulator already collects that information for all social landlords in its annual return on the charter. The regulator is required to report annually on performance against the charter and does so as part of its national report on the charter. The regulator also has on its website a facility where landlord performance can be compared and data tables that make all the information publicly accessible.

Asking social landlords to provide information to the regulator monthly and for the regulator to publish that information in addition to what it already does would be highly demanding with regard to time and resource and would impact on both social landlords and the regulator. As that information is already collected and published annually, I ask Mark Griffin not to move the amendment.

I understand Mark Griffin’s intention in amendment 272 to introduce a requirement on the Scottish Housing Regulator to publish

“guidance on the competence and conduct of individuals involved in the provision of services in connection with the management of social housing.”

However, work by the Chartered Institute for Housing in Scotland—the professional body for housing—is already under way, which demonstrates that it should be a matter for the sector itself to determine. The CIH should lead the work, with input from other sector organisations such as the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers, the wider sector and, of course, the Government.

For transparency, I note that, albeit some time ago, I worked for the CIH and was a member of it for many years. I commit the Scottish Government to being an active partner in that work and therefore ask Mr Griffin not to move amendment 272.