Chamber and committees

I appreciate that this is a point of principle for the Government. What I am saying is that you consulted on a different basis to that of the instruments that you have introduced. Do you not think that there is an issue with consulting with developers and the sector on one basis, and then introducing regulations that do something else?

My final question is on access to justice. The Law Society of Scotland and Homes for Scotland have raised issues about the lack of any option for a fee waiver or refund of a fee. What consideration has the Government given to fee waivers or refunds, given that we know that more than 50 per cent of applications are granted on appeal?

I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s comments. I am sure that my colleague Katy Clark will take up her offer to discuss the issue ahead of stage 3. I seek permission to withdraw amendment 408.

Amendment 408, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 378 to 382 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville].

Amendments 456 and 423 work together to make a small practical change to how RSLs are required to give notice of rent increases to tenants. If agreed to, the amendments would allow notices to be delivered by normal post as well as by hand, email or tracked mail. Currently, associations are obligated to use tracked mail, email or hand delivery in order to meet the existing legal requirements under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. Housing associations agree that hand delivery of notices is unnecessarily resource intensive and wasteful, that email delivery does not offer a guarantee that all tenants would receive a notice, and that tracked mail is too expensive.

In Scotland, existing legislation sets out that documents can be delivered only in one of three ways: personal delivery, delivered through a method of post that can be recorded, or delivery by agreed electronic transmission. However, the general law can be overruled by the specific terms of a statute, so I am confident that my amendments are legally competent. My amendments would allow landlords to deliver notices by different delivery methods, as they state that standard post can be used without any legal implications, which would lessen the burden on RSLs to comply with housing legislation and would allow them more time to support tenants in other ways and deliver a strong supply of housing in Scotland.

Amendments 457 and 457A would ensure that, when their current accommodation does not meet families’ needs, social landlords cannot prevent them from moving to more suitable accommodation because they have outstanding house arrears and housing-related debts. The amendments do not prevent debt recovery action. In many cases, people who are on low incomes and in unsuitable accommodation can be trapped in a cycle of debt. If they are in social housing, the opportunity to move to more suitable accommodation can be denied by the organisation if they have built up arrears. That can leave families trapped in debt and in housing that is either too big, not safe or overcrowded.

Unaffordable, overcrowded and substandard housing conditions have an adverse impact on people’s ability to cope, physically and mentally, and on wider family wellbeing, and that can exacerbate the cycle of debt. Urgent and compassionate reforms to public debt management and recovery, including rent and housing arrears, are required to tackle child poverty, support families, uphold children’s rights and ensure that every child and family has the opportunity to thrive. We need to promote compassionate and supportive debt management approaches. It is imperative that public bodies and housing associations develop debt recovery policies that recognise the impact of domestic and economic abuse to prevent victims/survivors from being pursued for debt coerced in their name as a result of abuse.

My amendments will work to prevent families from being denied more suitable accommodation as a result of built-up arrears. They will create greater protections for families that are affected by domestic abuse and ensure greater consistency with statutory human rights, children’s rights duties, and equally safe commitments for protecting women and children from the impact of violence and abuse.

I accept that local authorities should be able to pursue arrears, but I do not believe that that is best done by preventing families from accessing more suitable accommodation when it becomes available.

Amendment 271 would require the Scottish Housing Regulator to publish a monthly dashboard of information about social housing tenants in Scotland—which means continuing to publish the information that it has previously made available as its quarterly Covid-19 dashboard. The information that was contained in that dashboard was incredibly useful during the emergency conditions of the pandemic. As we are now a year into a housing emergency, having up-to-date information on progress and on the effects on tenants in the social sector would be similarly invaluable.

From the Government’s biannual reporting on the emergency rent control legislation, and from the extensive discussions that we have had at committee on the adequacy of the data provided by the private rental sector and the landlord register, it is clear that, in order to take action to keep rent affordable, we must have access to up-to-date and accurate data. While we improve the depth and breadth of the information that is available on the private sector, it is important that the quality and amount of information on the social sector cannot be allowed to slip below what is necessary and what we have previously had access to.

I note that the SFHA has highlighted a couple of concerns with the amendment, and I acknowledge its point that monthly updates would place a high burden of resource on smaller housing associations. For that reason, I am content not to move it at this time and to work with the sector and the Government to ensure the quality and depth of data required for the social housing sector at future stages of the bill. It would be unfortunate if we lost the level of information that we had during the pandemic and no longer collected or published it.

Amendment 272 is designed to allow for an opportunity to push for a more robust approach from the Scottish Housing Regulator on social housing providers setting out and measuring standards. It would strengthen the regulator’s role in providing guidance; it would require the regulator to issue guidance on the competence and conduct of individuals involved in the provision of services in connection with the management of social housing.

The Scottish Housing Regulator can already set out standards that housing organisations need to achieve. In the existing regulatory framework, standard 6 states:

“The governing body and senior officers have the skills and knowledge they need to be effective.”

That is a fairly vague statement, and there is little guidance on how that should be measured. Further, it applies only to RSLs, not to local authority staff. The guidance required by my amendment 272 would be much more robust and could include provisions around the knowledge, skills, experience and conduct of people holding certain positions within the social housing sector. The amendment includes a requirement to review the guidance at least once every five years and a requirement for the regulator to consult whoever they consider appropriate when developing or revising the guidance.

Amendment 408 would allow for

“the interest of the joint tenant”

under a private residential tenancy to

“be assigned to another joint tenant”

before the day on which they provide the landlord a notice outlining that they wish the tenancy to come to an end. However, under those circumstances, the tenancy

“must remain on the same terms as the existing tenancy”,

which would, I hope, allow for more flexibility for people in shared tenancies and, potentially, for easier and smoother transitions between tenancies.

I move amendment 408.

Did the initial consultation not make it explicit that it would not be aiming to achieve full cost recovery?

I appreciate the point about the public finance manual and public finances in general. However, do you accept that, if you consult on the principle that you are not seeking full cost recovery and then lay regulations that, as you have just said, seek full cost recovery, there is a disparity? There is clearly an issue with the consultation and how the Government has set out the principles of what it intends to do.

Amendments 268 and 269 would require Scottish ministers to review grounds for eviction under schedule 3 to the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 within 12 months of the bill coming into force. From analysing the case load of the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland, listening to the submissions of organisations that act on behalf of tenants and observing the outcomes of changes that were made to schedule 3 of the 2016 act and the emergency legislation that was made during the pandemic, it is clear that at least some of the grounds for eviction mean that the balance of rights in such cases is tilted unfairly away from tenants. While the grounds remain discretionary, the opportunity will exist for unscrupulous landlords to take advantage of the imbalance to unfairly evict tenants.

Although I am in favour of much of the thrust of part 2 of the bill, which will tighten up the circumstances under which eviction should be allowed, there is further to go in ensuring that the balance of rights is fair. That is why I support all the amendments in this group that will make it more difficult to allow unfair evictions.

My amendment 268 would allow the Government to review the structure under which such unfairness can take place. The amendment deals with the cause of the imbalance, while the rest of the bill attempts to mitigate the effects of that. We have all heard stories about tenants who, having been told that the landlord intends to put the property on the market, found that, after they were evicted, the property was put back up for rent, often at a higher price. All my amendments in this part of the bill seek to ensure that the balance of rights is re-weighted towards tenants, while still allowing landlords the ability to end a tenancy when there is a legitimate need to do so.

The time has come to review the grounds for eviction so that the Government can properly consider them in the light of the time that has passed and the experience that has been gained of the application of the grounds since the 2016 act and the subsequent amendments to the schedule came into force.

I take on board the Government’s commitment to undertaking the review and the fact that the timescale of 12 months might be overly prescriptive in relation to consulting on and providing a full perspective of the changes that are required, so I do not intend to move amendments 268 and 269.

Amendment 502 would prevent landlords from evicting tenants under no-fault circumstances for 12 months after they have carried out work as a result of a grant made under the ECO4 scheme. A 2023 Scottish Government report estimated that, by March 2024, nearly half of all households in the private rented sector would be living in fuel poverty. The ECO4 grants are part of the UK Government’s strategy to meet carbon emissions targets and reduce the impact of the cost of living crisis. The focus is on households that are deemed to live in fuel poverty. Grants are means tested to the tenant’s income; there is no relation to the landlord’s situation. If a landlord receives a grant to make improvements to the energy performance of the home, the decision has been taken to award the grant because of the financial circumstances of the tenant and not those of the landlord.

The tenant in question, having been the reason why the landlord got the grant and having been inconvenienced by the work that was carried out in their home, should be given more protection from eviction, so that they get the intended benefits of the improvement to the property, rather than the landlord being able to evict them and then, as is often the case, re-let the property at a higher price due to the improvements, which were funded by the Government because of the circumstances of the tenant.

I appreciate the points that the cabinet secretary makes, so I do not intend to move the amendment at this stage. However, there is a gap in the legislation on how we deal with that, whether that be at a UK or Scottish level. I am happy to have further discussions to iron out the anomaly of a landlord getting funding to improve a property on the basis of a tenant’s circumstances and then evicting them to re-let it.

As I said in my previous comments, it would be helpful to receive a response from the minister in charge.