Chamber and committees

I am not opposed to conditions being attached to the grant. I am not aware of the legal discussions that have gone on in relation to that scheme or whether there are difficulties between reserved and devolved competencies with regard to the laws on housing evictions and other areas. As I said, I am happy to have a discussion with the Scottish Government on the legal interaction between reserved and devolved competencies. I am happy to not move the amendment, to leave that to a further discussion and to come back at stage 3, potentially.

I turn to the amendments in the name of my colleague Katy Clark. Amendment 409 aims to strengthen the criminal law relating to unlawful eviction and the action that can be taken against the worst landlords, particularly repeat offenders.

Freedom of information requests from the Legal Services Agency to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service revealed that, of the 153 complaints that it received of unlawful eviction in the five years to 31 March 2018, COPFS proceeded against only 56 to 59 people. Such proceedings resulted in a minimum of three and a maximum of 12 convictions annually. At the time of a 2020 publication by the Legal Services Agency, the First-tier Tribunal had made an award of damages for unlawful eviction only once in its entire history.

Amendment 409 seeks to tighten the legal provisions against unlawful evictions by amending the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 to create a wrongful termination offence that criminalises the act of misleading

“a tenant into ceasing to occupy a let property.”

That allows for a defence where an individual had not intentionally misled the tribunal or the tenant.

An individual who is guilty of that offence on a summary conviction would be liable to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to a six-month maximum custodial sentence, or to both. If convicted on indictment, the individual would be liable to a fine or to imprisonment for a maximum two-year term, or to both. The amendment is an attempt to strengthen the penalties in the most extreme cases.

On amendments 413 and 414, further to the previous amendment, amendment 413 also seeks to strengthen deterrence against unscrupulous actions by landlords by setting higher penalties under a “wrongful-termination order”. The amendment would increase the maximum penalty for wrongful termination. It also seeks to increase the cumulative total that the tribunal may require landlords to pay from six months to 36 months.

Amendment 414 relates to eviction orders for occupied properties on the grounds of sale, only for landlords to later seemingly abandon those plans to sell. Research from Generation Rent in 2022 found that, despite tenancy reforms, nearly a third of private landlords who evicted tenants in order to sell their property failed to sell the home more than a year later, with 9 per cent of cases of tenants who were evicted on grounds of sale seeing the home simply sold to another landlord who then re-let the property. Therefore, amendment 414 would add protections on property sale, restricting landlords from letting or attempting to let the property in question within 12 months of an eviction order being granted.

That covers the amendments in my name and Katy Clark’s name, but I want to touch briefly on the amendments in the name of Meghan Gallacher that relate to protections due to terminal illness. I support the work that Meghan Gallacher, the cabinet secretary and Marie Curie have done in that area and hope that we can reach a consensus and strengthen protection for those who are terminally ill and their families.

I also want to touch briefly on the issues raised by Willie Rennie, Fulton MacGregor and Meghan Gallacher on the use of properties that are held by religious organisations. In general, I agree with Maggie Chapman that the organisations that hold such properties should not dictate how easy it is to evict. However, if that leads to those properties lying empty, especially when they are the large, family-sized properties that we are crying out for, it would be helpful for the Government to look at how to allow those organisations to let such properties and relieve that pressure, with the assurance that they can bring them back into use for a minister, a priest or any other employee.

Some of the evidence that we have received from stakeholders suggests that the introduction of fees for planning appeals and reviews favour the more well-resourced developers. What is the Government’s take on that? Do the fees deny an appeals process to some developers, particularly small and medium-sized enterprise developers? There has been a contraction in the number of SME developers across the country, but they are key, particularly when it comes to rural and brownfield development. When the Government carried out the business and regulatory impact assessment on the instrument, what assessment was made of the impact on SME developers?

I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s support in principle for the intention behind my amendment 417 and the Government’s on-going dialogue and engagement with Scottish Land & Estates to work towards making potential changes at stage 3. I therefore seek permission to withdraw amendment 417 in order to allow those discussions to continue.

On Maggie Chapman’s point about amendment 419, I realise that there would be an increased burden if we were to switch from a three-year to a one-year cycle of registration, but we need to balance outdated rent levels and outdated registrations. Some landlords stop being landlords but do not withdraw from the register; they simply allow their registration to lapse, potentially up to three years later. The concern is that there might be compliance gaps lasting up to three years, and the burden of annual registration needs to be balanced against the live information that could be gathered annually.

My amendments in the group are data driven, and I am reassured by the cabinet secretary’s comment that there will be a separate engagement exercise on data that we will be able to lean on for policy making. I still think that there is a potential gap with regard to the rights of a prospective tenant compared with the rights of a prospective house buyer, who will have far more information at their fingertips to allow them to assess decisions, so I might well come back to that issue at stage 3.

Amendment 417, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 418 and 488 not moved.

Amendment 454 moved—[Ross Greer].

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].

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?

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.

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

The amendments in the name of my colleague Daniel Johnson are probing amendments that seek to highlight the issue of tenants and owner-occupiers in tenements potentially missing out on the opportunity of the roll-out of superfast broadband across the country and the economic benefits that that will bring. There is a grey area when it comes to maintenance, improvements and upgrades and the definition of a utility, and there is real concern that many tenement owners and tenants, who would really benefit from broadband infrastructure being upgraded, might miss out. Has the Government reflected on whether there is a potential grey area in that respect that needs to be looked at?

I apologise, Ms Chapman. I meant to cover that point. Absolutely. These are probing amendments for the purpose of having a debate about ensuring that we are not at risk of excluding tenemented buildings and common areas from the superfast broadband roll-out. Daniel Johnson has no intention of moving the amendment. It is simply to get that point on the record and to obtain recognition from the Government that we need to consider that issue.

Your concerns are valid. If the amendment was to come back at stage 3, I am sure that Mr Johnson would address that point; however, he probably has no intention of bringing it back at stage 3. The purpose of the amendment is purely to get the debate on the record and to start that dialogue between the Government and Openreach. I appreciate the points that you have raised.

Finally, I will cover my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments. She has helpfully provided more detailed notes. In Scotland’s 2022 census, around 24.1 per cent of the population reported having a disability. That percentage reflects a significant increase on previous years and highlights the growing need for inclusive policies and support to ensure that disabled people can participate in society and lead an ordinary life. That figure is even higher in Ms Duncan-Glancy’s region of Glasgow. In the 2022 census, 26 per cent of Glasgow residents reported having a disability, meaning that Glasgow has the highest proportion of disabled people among the major Scottish cities.

Furthermore, Scotland, like many developed countries, has an ageing population. The number of over-75s is projected to increase by 70 per cent by 2045, from about 460,000 in 2020 to more than 780,000. All that highlights the need to introduce policies that are fit for the future, including ensuring that housing is fit for the future.

However, the reality is that a large proportion of Scotland’s existing housing stock does not work for people with reduced mobility or with care needs. In 2021, more than 100,000 people in Scotland were on waiting lists for accessible social housing. It is difficult to obtain specific figures detailing the number of individuals waiting for accessible social housing in Glasgow, but figures from the four housing associations in the city that responded to a recent freedom of information request show that 1,395 people are on waiting lists for ground-floor properties. More than 60 housing associations and housing co-operatives operate across Glasgow, so the figure will undoubtedly be far higher. Furthermore, the figure applies to only one type of adaptation.

Scotland faces significant challenges in meeting the demand for the adaptations that are essential to allow disabled people to remain in their own homes. That is key to maintaining independence, which has a knock-on effect on health and wellbeing. Projected changes in Scotland’s demographics mean that it is more important than ever to ensure that people have accessible and adaptable homes available to them, which is why Ms Duncan-Glancy lodged this suite of amendments.

Amendment 470 deals with the accessible homes standard. In its “Housing to 2040” document, the Scottish Government committed to introducing the Scottish accessible homes standard for all new homes. The standard was to be implemented through changes to building standards in guidance from 2025-26. However, the Government has delayed its introduction. In a ministerial statement, delivered in late 2024, the minister announced that legislation to implement the standard would be rescheduled.

Instead of introducing that legislation in 2025, the Government plans to launch a public consultation, which is particularly concerning given the increase in demand for accessible housing. The Government has indicated that the forthcoming consultation will inform the development of the standard, with a phased introduction anticipated between 2025 and 2030. People across the country, particularly disabled people, are fed up of continually being asked to participate in consultations that do not necessarily result in the action that they want to see. Disabled people and their representative organisations were actively consulted during the development of the housing to 2040 strategy and now want to see change. More important, they are absolutely fed up of being stuck in inaccessible housing.

Amendment 470 would compel ministers to create an accessible homes standard that all house builders must adhere to when designing and building homes across all tenures and would require that standard to be introduced no later than two years from when the bill comes into force. The purpose of the amendment is to guarantee progress on previous commitments, because the Government has been slow to act, and it would improve the accessibility and adaptability of new-build homes by ensuring that they are suitable for people of all ages and abilities.

Amendment 471 deals with the review of the Scottish accessible homes standard. Because of Scotland’s population will undergo further demographic shifts in the coming years, and because of the pace of change in the technology that supports people to live in their own homes, it is important that the standard is updated. This amendment follows on from amendment 470 and would ensure that the standard is reviewed, giving scope for it to be updated as building techniques and demand change. Amendment 471 would also ensure that disabled people and interested groups would be consulted during the review process and that any updated standard can be scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament.

The “Housing for Varying Needs: a design guide” publication was originally published in 1998 but is yet to be formally updated more than 25 years after its introduction. Although a review of part 1 of the guide, which focuses on the design of self-contained houses and flats, was initiated in 2023, the Government has yet to publish the outcome of that consultation or to formally update the design guide. Scotland’s demographic has undergone significant change since 1998 and the existing design guide predates those changes. It is also not fully aligned with current expectations about accessibility or with technological advances, is inconsistent across tenures and is poorly aligned with modern building standards.

Amendment 472 would mandate ministers to publish, within two years of the bill’s passage, guidance on the design of housing that is accessible for people with a range of needs. The purpose of the amendment is to bring current guidance up to date and ensure that it reflects the ever-changing needs of Scotland’s diverse population. It will clarify what developers should consider when building homes.

Amendment 473 follows on from amendment 472 and would ensure that any guidance that is produced is reviewed as the demographic continues to shift and developments are made in building techniques and resource availability. Its purpose is to ensure that the current situation—the existing guidance is now more than 25 years out of date—is avoided.

Amendment 551 would require the Scottish ministers to introduce a scheme to provide housing adaptations that improve accessibility, as recommended by the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence. The scheme would be tenure neutral and integrate adaptations into planned repair, maintenance and update programmes. It would also include a mechanism for evaluating the adaptations process, to inform future strategy and resource allocation. The purpose of the amendment is to make it easier for people to access and navigate the adaptations process, and to allow people to remain in their own homes.

That covers all the amendments in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy. Ms Duncan-Glancy is appreciative of discussions with the cabinet secretary and the assurances from the Government to work on those issues in advance of stage 3, and does not plan to move her amendments in the group. However, she wanted to put them on record together with the issues that disabled people face in accessing homes that meet their needs.