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.

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 am grateful for the discussions that I have had with members, particularly Mark Griffin and Meghan Gallacher, on the issues raised by the amendments in this group. I also thank Marie Curie for the meetings that we have had to discuss the issues for tenants who are terminally ill and their families that have prompted the amendments in this group. Those issues include concerns about the length of time for which a person must currently have lived in a let property before they can succeed to a tenancy, which is 12 months in both the social and private rented sectors, and the time by which an occupier has to leave a let property after the tenant’s death.

I turn first to amendments 520 and 521, in the name of Meghan Gallacher. Amendment 520 would remove the current 12-month qualifying residence period before partners, members of a tenant’s family or carers are entitled to succeed to a Scottish secure tenancy following the death of the tenant. Amendment 521 would make the same change in relation to private residential tenancies under the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016. Those amendments would remove the qualifying period and would require only that the house must be that person’s only or principal home at the time of the tenant’s death.

In addition, amendments 520 and 521 seek to change the amount of time that a person who could succeed to the tenancy but does not wish to do so must be given before they must leave the property. There is currently a process for that in the social rented sector. Amendment 520 would change the period of time that a tenant in such circumstances has before they must leave the property, raising it from three months to six months. I see the benefits for tenants but would like to further consider the impact of that change in relation to the duty on social landlords to make the best use of their housing stock. Initial discussions with some social landlords have raised some concerns and, in a housing emergency, any delay in being able to allocate a property when an individual has indicated that they do not wish to remain there must be carefully considered. However, I am happy to commit to further exploring that aspect of the amendment with Meghan Gallacher and Marie Curie ahead of stage 3. Should social landlords not make a substantive case, I am content to work with Meghan Gallacher on that area, and I particularly thank her for the conversations that we have had in the past few weeks and for her commitment to moving forward on the issue.

Amendment 521 would make changes to the 2016 act to introduce a similar mechanism for qualifying private tenants who do not wish to succeed to a tenancy. That would mean that private landlords would have to give a tenant who has already automatically succeeded to a private residential tenancy six months’ notice to leave that tenancy if they write to the landlord to say that they do not wish to become the tenant. Existing legislation already provides greater protection for tenants in those circumstances, because qualifying tenants automatically succeed to the tenancy and can stay for as long as they choose. The change is, therefore, unnecessary and would actually reduce existing rights.

Amendments 520 and 521 would also introduce a new mandatory requirement on landlords to give reasonable assistance to the tenant to find alternative accommodation, and I recognise the positive intent behind that. Social landlords are already required to provide housing options advice for those at risk of becoming homeless, so that homelessness is prevented as early as possible, which means that the new requirement is therefore not necessary. Private landlords will not usually have the necessary training or resources to provide housing options advice and assistance to tenants, so I do not think that they are best placed to support a tenant who needs or wishes to move to alternative accommodation. A more effective approach would be to work with Marie Curie and other relevant stakeholders to develop a practice note that would support private landlords whose tenant has a terminal illness or dies. That would be the appropriate resource to encourage landlords to provide tenants with signposting to the organisations that are best placed to provide support and advice in those circumstances.

I understand the concerns raised by the member and Marie Curie that the current qualifying period contributes to housing insecurity and increases distress and trauma for terminally ill people, their families and carers, which can cause profound emotional and practical disruption when they are at their most vulnerable. I have also reflected on previous consideration of the issue, which resulted in the extension, through the Housing (Scotland) Act 2014, of the qualifying period from six to 12 months—a position also taken in the 2016 act. The qualifying residence period for succession must be balanced with the need to make best use of the limited social housing that is available and with the property rights of landlords. On balance, I think that the 12-month qualifying period should be changed and, therefore, ask members to support amendments 383 and 384, in the name of Paul McLennan, which would reduce that qualifying period from 12 to six months.

I ask Meghan Gallacher not to move amendments 520 and 521, in light of Government amendments 383 and 384 and my commitment to explore, at stage 3, a change to the timescale for leaving a property where a succeeding tenant declines the tenancy.

I also reiterate my commitment to progress the development of guidance for private landlords to help them to support terminally ill tenants and their families.

I move amendment 383.

I again thank all the members with whom I have had discussions about the amendments in this group. Those discussions have been a good example of the kind of discussions that we can have on exceptionally sensitive issues. We all come from the same starting point, which is that we want to be able to support people with a terminal illness and their loved ones in the most difficult of circumstances.

This group of amendments is an example of our ability to make a real difference to people, which does not arise in many cases. I thank Marie Curie for the intensive work that it has done directly with my officials to provide case studies for me to examine to enable me to identify where there are flaws or gaps in the law, or where there is an issue with tenants not understanding their rights or landlords not understanding their obligations. That has been very helpful as we have sought to make progress on the issue.

I believe that changes need to be made to the amendments that Meghan Gallacher has lodged, for the reasons that I have explained, but I share her intent of providing the best possible assistance to people who, along with their loved ones, might be in the worst of circumstances.

Amendment 383 agreed to.

Amendment 384 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.

Amendments 520 and 521 not moved.

Section 39—Social landlords: delivery of notices etc

Amendments 456 and 423 not moved.

Section 39 agreed to.

Section 40 agreed to.

After section 40

Amendments 422 and 247 not moved.

Amendment 273 moved—[Maggie Chapman].

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.

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 for 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.

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.