Chamber and committees

I agree that such a case should not get to the point of going through a tribunal. That goes back to a point that we have raised on many issues, about being able to support tenants in better recognition of their rights and landlords in recognition of their obligations. However, we also need to take account—in the private rented sector, for example—of aspects such as shared accommodation and whether other tenants have allergies.

I completely appreciate Maggie Chapman’s point. The case studies that she mentioned are clearly very concerning, which is why it is important that we do further work on tenants’ rights and landlords’ responsibilities on those issues. However, I unfortunately remain persuaded that the amendments are not necessary and that we can achieve the outcome that Maggie Chapman and I wish to achieve in other ways.

Amendments 523 and 532 in the name of Emma Roddick and amendments 24 and 28 in the name of Maggie Chapman seek to reduce the period in which landlords must respond to a pet request. We recognise that pets are important members of people’s families and believe that tenants should be able to benefit from the experience of pet ownership, as is the case for most other households, including my own.

Amendment 523 would reduce the period for private landlords to respond to a pet request from 42 days to 28 days, and amendment 24 would reduce the period to 14 days. I am concerned that reducing the period to 14 days might result in disputes that could be avoided if a slighter longer period is in place. Even if a landlord is content to agree to a request, the landlord might have further questions. Ensuring that there is enough time for the landlord and tenant to discuss the request will help both parties. The landlord might otherwise be unable to consent, only because there has not been enough time to agree reasonable conditions.

As part of our landlord and tenant engagement questionnaire, we consulted on the appropriate timescale for a landlord to respond. In setting the timescale at 42 days, we tried to strike a balance between providing landlords with a reasonable timescale to consider and respond to a tenant’s request and ensuring that the timescale is not unreasonably long from a tenant’s perspective. The timescale is also aligned to that for the consideration of a request to make a category 2 change to the property. However, I recognise that there are concerns, including from animal rights charities, that 42 days is too long. I am therefore happy to work with both members to consider the timescale before stage 3. On that basis, I ask the members not to move those amendments.

Amendment 532 would reduce the period for social landlords to respond to a pet request from one month to 28 days, whereas amendment 28 would reduce the period to 14 days. I am concerned that reducing the period to 14 days may result in unnecessary disputes, in a similar way to the private sector. The period of one month is a bit more onerous than the 42 days that are afforded to the private sector, but that was considered reasonable given that social landlords already respond within a month to other requests from tenants, such as requests to take a lodger, sublet, assign a tenancy or exchange a house. I think that it is helpful for social landlords to have a consistent period for responding to such requests, but I am happy to discuss that matter again with members. On that basis, I ask the members not to move their amendments.

Amendment 25, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would change the provision so that, when a private landlord fails to respond, a request would be automatically approved. I am concerned that there would be negative consequences to an assumed consent model in the private rented sector. For example, it would be difficult to remedy disputes in cases in which a landlord has not responded, or appears not to have responded, to a request in the timeframe, but there was a legitimate reason for a delayed response. If the tenant had assumed consent and had already obtained a pet in the interim, that would create significant issues. On that basis, I ask the member not to press the amendment.

As I have said to committee members and other interested parties, I am always happy to have another meeting so that members can try to persuade me further, even though they have not managed to get Government support in the run-up to stage 3. If Mr Greer would like one more try at that in the run-up to stage 3, we can do that, but I suggest that his chances of success are low. However, I will never say never and, if he would like to take me up on the invitation, I would be happy to have that discussion.

Based on the work that I have undertaken for the bill, I am content with the Government’s current position, and I do not feel that we will change our mind on that in the run-up to stage 3. I must be honest with Mr Greer. I promise to meet many people and I genuinely want to work with him, but it is important that I am realistic about his chances of persuading the Government, although I do not know about his chances of persuading other members.

I am happy to carry on having these conversations with Maggie Chapman in the run-up to stage 3 if she thinks that there is a flaw in what is being suggested by the Government at stage 2, or a gap in the proposals that would create problems for tenants. I have tried to set out that we believe that it is important that there is a process in place that is based on the rent cap and does not have a subjective process attached to it. However, with that caveat, if there are further discussions that we can have ahead of stage 3, I would be happy to carry on with those. The Government has been clear about the importance of the rent cap in providing clarity to landlords and tenants.

Amendment 139, in the name of Emma Roddick, and amendment 238, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would both require a rent officer to impose a financial penalty on a landlord that would require the landlord to pay a sum to the tenant if the rent officer were to find that a rent increase notice that was referred to them for verification proposes an increase above the level of the rent cap. The amendments would provide for different financial penalties, either three times the amount that was requested by the landlord above the rent cap or an amount of £10,000.

Amendment 140, in the name of Emma Roddick, and amendment 239, in the name of Maggie Chapman, are similar. The amendments relate to cases in which a landlord or tenant refers a rent officer’s determination under section 43M of the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 for review and the rent officer finds that the proposed rent is above the level of the cap. In those circumstances, the rent officer would be obliged to issue an order for the landlord to pay a penalty to the tenant. The amendments would provide for different financial penalties: either three times the amount or an amount of up to £10,000.

The amendments do not include a defence of reasonable excuse for a landlord, which may have included making a genuine error. There would also be no right of appeal to an independent impartial tribunal, nor would there be discretion for the rent officer to not impose a penalty when they consider that a penalty is not appropriate.

In addition, rent service Scotland is a non-judicial body and rent officers are arguably not equipped to make a judgment on the culpability of a landlord or on the appropriate level of penalty. As such, there would likely require to be a further level of consideration, potentially by the First-tier Tribunal, which would create a far more complex and costly process than is set out in the amendments.

Although I have concerns about the details of the amendments, which mean that I cannot support them, I understand the concerns that the members are seeking to address through them. I urge Emma Roddick and Maggie Chapman not to move their amendments. Instead, I offer to work with them, similar to my offer on amendments 137 and 237, which were debated in an earlier group. I would be happy to discuss the issues further, ahead of stage 3, with a view to reaching an agreement on what might be appropriate. I hope that that would address the concerns that they have quite rightly raised in committee today.

Finally, amendment 240, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would require the First-tier Tribunal to impose a financial penalty on a landlord, ordering them to pay a sum to the tenant if the tribunal finds that the initial rent under the tenancy was set too high or that the first rent increase was introduced too early. The penalty would be up to £10,000. Again, there is no defence of reasonable excuse for a landlord who might have made a genuine error, and there is no discretion for the tribunal not to impose a penalty where it considers that the penalty is not appropriate. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment, and I urge Ms Chapman not to move it.

I urge Emma Roddick, Rachael Hamilton and Maggie Chapman not to move their amendments in this group and instead to work with me ahead of stage 3 to consider whether we can find consensus on possible changes to penalties on landlords who do not comply with their duties under this part of the bill.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.