���˿���

It is almost as if mainstreaming only works one way—it does not come back. I will leave it there. Thank you.

Good morning, and thank you for joining us.

Before I come to my questions, I declare an interest, as, six or seven years ago, I worked for a vision impairment charity that did quite a lot of work across the sensory impairment landscape, including with deaf charities.

I am interested in views on the second national BSL plan, and I will come to Avril Hepner first. We have heard mixed views on that plan. It recognises some of the key issues for BSL users, but there are concerns that it lacks focus and does not have clear, measurable goals or specific outcomes—you have touched on some of that already—and that timelines and accountability are not always clear. There is also criticism that it was watered down from earlier drafts. My question is an open one. What are your views on that second plan, and how have you been involved in its development?

I put the same questions to Hannah Tweed around views on the second plan, the issues around the lack of measurement and, in essence, the watering down that we have heard about from Avril Hepner. The second plan is smaller in scope and size than the first plan. What are the consequences of that?

Amendments 135B to 135E seek to support and, I hope, improve on Meghan Gallacher’s proposed private rented sector charter. I support the idea of a charter; Meghan’s comments indicate why it is so important. Tenants’ rights are often not clearly outlined, so it is welcome and important to have a charter that simply explains those rights and how tenants can ensure that they are met.

I recognise that Meghan will not move her amendments today. However, I will give the rationale behind the amendments that I have lodged. Amendment 135B would ensure that key standards were included in the charter—they would not be an optional inclusion. Amendment 135C is intended to ensure that the charter would support tenants’ rights as much as possible. Even if we were to vote on Meghan Gallacher’s amendments today, I would not move amendment 135C—as I previously discussed with Meghan, we can tweak its wording.

Amendment 135D would ensure that the charter was consulted on appropriately. The amendment is based on the process that has happened with the social security charter.

Amendment 135E would ensure that the charter was available in accessible formats, such as Braille, so that everybody could read and understand their rights.

I know that people will be sad to hear that this is my last amendment to the bill at this stage.

Amendment 515 is an absolutely crucial amendment. We have heard criticisms that the bill does not do enough to increase the supply of homes, which my amendment seeks to address in specific ways. The “Scottish Vacant and Derelict Land Survey 2023” showed that we have over 9,000 hectares of derelict and vacant land in Scotland. Roughly two thirds of vacant and derelict land is used for residential housing, when it is eventually brought into use.

We also have many houses that are not in use. As of 2024, 31,596 homes had been left empty for more than one year. We have a housing crisis, people living in unsuitable accommodation and local authorities suspending social housing allocations as they are needed for temporary accommodation, yet we also have almost 32,000 homes that could be rented or sold for people to live in.

That situation has to change, and my amendment does that. It would allow local authorities to order a property or land that has been left vacant for a specified period to be sold for housing or rented to tenants. That is not a new idea: England’s empty dwelling management orders, which allow privately owned properties to be managed, have been in place for around 20 years. In 2018, the Scottish Land Commission published proposals on that, but the Scottish Government is yet to act on them.

I am very grateful to have Shelter Scotland’s support for my amendment. I am not shying away from the fact that the use of such orders is a complicated area, which is why I have largely left the issue to secondary legislation. I also accept that my amendment might need some tweaks or changes. However, given the statistics that I have outlined and the housing crisis that Mark Griffin and others have mentioned this afternoon, we should be using the bill to send a clear signal that we no longer tolerate houses being left empty for years when people are homeless.

Amendment 503 seeks to further reinforce rent controls. As I said previously, we need to ensure that rogue landlords will not chance raising rents above what is legally allowed. That was the rationale for having much higher fines. An additional deterrent would be to remove the landlord from the landlord register if they have flouted rent controls, which is what amendment 503 would enable. I am happy to discuss changes to make the proposal agreeable to the committee, but if we are serious about rent controls, we need to back that with genuine deterrents for landlords who seek to get around them.

Mark Griffin’s amendments would bring more transparency to the private rented sector by requiring more information on the properties let by a landlord to be included in the register. Information on rents would also need to be included, which would support rent controls, as well as broader information for tenants. That is welcome, as it would make the register more accessible to tenants and prospective tenants.

I have a question on amendment 419, which Mark Griffin could perhaps address when he sums up. That amendment would remove landlords from the register unless they re-registered after one year, rather than the current three years. That would improve accessibility for landlords, which we welcome, but there is a question about the burdensome nature of that provision, particularly for local authorities. It would be useful if Mark Griffin could address that issue.

My amendment 190 addresses two important issues in relation to deposits. The first is the large deposits that so many landlords now require. As rents have skyrocketed, so have deposits. The average rent for a two-bedroom flat in Lothian is £1,358 a month. As landlords can ask for up to two months at once, a maximum deposit would be around £2,700. That presents a major barrier to securing accommodation for very many renters. As the discretionary housing payments budget is hugely oversubscribed, using that fund to help people to pay overly large deposits is clearly not the best use of a limited pot.

The second part of amendment 190 addresses up-front rent payments. It seeks to make it clear that

“any requirement to pay rent prior to the commencement of a tenancy or to secure ... the tenancy”

in the first place

“is a prohibited requirement.”

I welcome most of the other amendments in the group. Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 130 would require deposits to be paid directly to a deposit protection scheme. That would set up a direct line of communication between tenants and the scheme and make it easier for deposits to be returned. It would also avoid the problems of landlords illegally holding deposits themselves.

Graham Simpson’s amendment 73 would make it easier for people with less connection to the UK to provide a guarantor. We agree with that principle. Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment would make it easier for students to provide a guarantor, which we also support.

Paul McLennan’s amendments in the group are broadly welcome, but I seek an assurance that amendment 374 will not make it harder to create new purposes for which unspent deposits may be used. I would appreciate the cabinet secretary addressing that point in her remarks.

I want to ask a very quick question, cabinet secretary, as I would like your assurance on a matter. You said that the points made in my amendment 503 are already covered by the 2004 act. Can you assure me that they are indeed covered, given that rent controls are not mentioned in that act, as they did not exist when it was passed? My amendment specifically mentions deviations from rent control levels.

I thank Graham Simpson for referring to amendment 251. Cabinet secretary, you mentioned the review of repossession grounds. In the letter that you will write to the committee after stage 2, will you include the timeframe for that review, so that we know when we will have that information and what we will be able to do with it when it comes out?

This is another fairly lengthy—but not too lengthy—contribution from me. I know that many members of the committee and, indeed, many members of the Parliament, are pet owners and animal lovers. Emma Roddick entered Sparky, her beautiful English bull terrier, into the Holyrood dog of the year competition earlier this month, and Meghan Gallacher entered Trevor, a Dogs Trust dog.

Pets make a house a home, and this part of the bill seeks to set up a clear framework for tenants to make requests for their pets to live with them as part of their family. There is a lack of pet-friendly rented homes in Scotland. A 2021 survey of landlords, letting agents and tenants on pets and rental properties conducted by YouGov on behalf of Cats Protection and the Dogs Trust found that 68 per cent of private Scottish landlords who do not currently allow pets in any or all of their properties say that nothing would persuade them to do so. That demonstrates the need for a legal framework to actively encourage landlords to see the benefits of pet ownership for responsible tenants.

Additionally, the survey highlighted the number of blanket no-pet policies in Scotland. Some 18 per cent of Scottish landlords do not allow cats because they use a standard contract template provided by the letting agent, and 6 per cent because they use a standard contract template which they download. Tenants are being denied the opportunity to experience the benefits of pet ownership simply because their contract says no to pets. The proposals will end blanket no-pet policies by enabling tenants to request to keep a pet without fear of automatic rejection because of a contractual clause.

Giving responsible tenants a right to request to keep a pet in their home that landlords cannot unreasonably refuse, will decrease the burden on animal rehoming organisations such as Cats Protection. In 2023, Cats Protection took in the equivalent of around three cats each day due to landlords not allowing them in their properties. Our proposals have the potential to help relieve the large waiting lists that rehoming organisations face and allow them to focus their resources on other animals in need.

A number of my amendments would make the pet request process work better and they have all been developed in partnership with Cats Protection, Dogs Trust and Sight Scotland. My amendments 24 and 28 reduce the time a tenant has to wait to get a response to a pet request from 42 to 14 days. Dogs Trust believes that that would allow tenants to better plan for pet ownership, reduce any kennelling or cattery expenses and lessen the significant stress of not knowing whether they will be able to keep their pet in their rented property. From the landlord’s point of view, it would still afford a reasonable timeframe in which to consider the request.

My amendment 26 addresses a loophole in the proposed system. If a landlord does not meet the timescale, they are deemed to have refused the request, which is simply not fair. The tenant has no way of knowing why the landlord does not consent to the pet and therefore has no ability to offer assurances to the landlord or to challenge the decision. Amendment 26 would change that, so that the landlord is deemed to have consented if they do not reply within the timescale. That is not new or an untested formula. It is the same approach that appears in section 30 of the bill, on social housing. There is no good reason at all why social and private tenancies should not be treated exactly the same in that respect. It is very important that all parties are clear on what does and does not constitute a reasonable request and a reasonable refusal, so my amendments 26 and 27 would require ministers to produce appropriate guidance on that.

My amendments 259 to 261 and 263 to 265 cover assistance animals. The amendments exempt assistance animals from the pet request process, granting an automatic right to have an assistance animal in a rented property. I have heard concerns that the subject of the amendments is already covered by the Equality Act 2010, which, of course, prohibits discrimination against disabled people, but there are no specific protections for disabled tenants who need their assistance animals at home. Sight Scotland reports having to work with the landlords of blind and partially sighted people to ensure that their assistance animals can live with them. If the 2010 act were perfectly clear on that point, that would clearly not be happening, but it is.

I would like to provide a quote from a person with sight loss living in Edinburgh who has repeatedly been refused a tenancy because they need their guide dog to live with them and have been told no:

“It was very disheartening when I was told that I could not rent a property because of my Guide Dog. It made me feel very upset and frustrated.

Even when I explained the laws and legislation, I was still told no and that the letting agent had to take the landlord’s side. It made me very wary of looking for a rental property, and I started to discount a lot of properties, as the adverts stated no pets.

This left me with a very limited choice of houses to pick from. The stress of finding a property is bad enough without having to explain my sight loss and why I have a Guide Dog as my mobility aid.”

Disabled people should not be made to jump through the hoops of the Equality Act 2010 to prove that it covers having their assistance animal with them in their home. There should instead be a very clear and simple statement in Scottish housing law confirming that they can, and that is what my amendments seek to do. I am very pleased that Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland, Guide Dogs and Sight Scotland support the amendments.