³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Yes. The grant fund is focused on helping tenants who are struggling financially. It is fair to say that, given the current circumstances, which apply more widely than to the operation of the private rented sector, we are all very conscious that the cost of living crisis is already severe and might continue to be exacerbated. Some of the actions that we can consider will go beyond my brief. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government wrote to councils in December—she followed up with them last week to reiterate it—to say that payments from the tenant hardship grant fund should be made to those who are in most financial need and who face the risk of homelessness, in particular people in the private rented sector who may be at risk of eviction. People in the social rented sector whose incomes were already low and have been hit hard by the pandemic can also get help through the scheme.

Under the pre-action protocol, landlords should make tenants who are at risk of losing their home as a result of rent arrears aware of all the forms of financial support that are available, and not just the tenant grant fund.

There will continue to be on-going debate across Parliament, and there will be discussions across a number of portfolios in Government, to ensure that we take the most ambitious approach that we can to supporting people through the cost of living crisis. That will apply to ministers who have a housing brief, but it will certainly go beyond that.

Most fundamentally, and to put it at the simplest level, that will allow the tribunal to consider all circumstances relating to the landlord and the tenant. If tribunal discretion is made permanent—if the committee agrees with our proposal—landlords will still be able to pursue eviction when they believe that it is necessary. The proposal will not fundamentally end or curtail the rights of landlords. However, being able to take into account individual circumstances, which include, but are not limited to, those that have been caused by the pandemic, will provide a far fairer balance of rights for everybody involved.

In the committee’s earlier evidence session, the example was given of a private tenant who had to be moved in order to escape an abusive or violent situation at home and faced additional costs because of the price of the property that they were moved into. Such circumstances need to be taken into account and understood. There will be other such circumstances that members from all parts of the country will recognise from their constituency and regional work. For example, in a rural area, there might be very little alternative housing available. Even if a landlord has a reasonable case to make, they will need to balance that against the experience of the tenant, if no alternative housing is available.

Individual circumstances need to be balanced and taken into account. We believe that giving discretion to take into account individual circumstances on all grounds will allow the proper balance to be struck—as it has been during the period when emergency legislation has been imposed.

I take on board the cautionary tale about Montreal. I will make a note not to seek to learn too many lessons from the circumstances there.

That said, the longer-term work, beyond these particular measures, will include looking at the issue of winter evictions. Again, across European countries, there are a range of approaches to that. We will consult on the options to recognise the particular circumstances in winter, including the increased financial costs that people face at that time of year, as well as the lack of access to services at short notice that people might experience during some parts of the season.

Of course, if there is a protected period for evictions during winter, there will be similar concerns about what happens when that comes to an end and whether there might be unintended consequences. Therefore, we want to understand everybody’s perspective on such proposals so that we can ensure that we design provisions that are right for Scotland’s circumstances.

With regard to the picture that you paint of the role of the private rented sector in relation to homelessness, we should be aspiring to a situation in which the private rented sector provides flexibility and gives people who are facing homelessness ways of resolving their issues and avoiding that risk but also gives people the opportunity to move out of homelessness and get a tenancy that will be right for them, will support them, is in the right place and is at an affordable price. That is what we should be aiming for, and it can do that. As I said earlier, at other times the private rented sector has been the biggest source of newly homeless people, and that is what we need to avoid.

The requirement for pre-action protocols is in line with what has already been acknowledged as being best practice by good landlords who want to avoid evictions. We should recognise the fact that good professional landlords do not like the idea of instability in their tenancies. They want stable tenancies that work, and having that goal of avoiding eviction and trying to reach a way of sustaining a tenancy, where possible, through discussion with the tenant and pointing them in the direction of money advice services and financial support is a clear way of ensuring that we avoid a situation in which people are evicted into homelessness, where that is avoidable. The tribunal having the discretion to take into account the circumstances in which the landlord has attempted to go through the steps of the pre-action protocol is part of that.

Those steps will not be a magic bullet—no one is suggesting that this is the only thing that we need to be doing—but they will clearly be positive and beneficial with regard to our attempts to prevent homelessness, and are very much in line with the work of the groups that you mentioned that are concerned with these issues.

In some circumstances, the awareness-raising work is important in that regard. As we said earlier, the diversity of the private rented sector is significant. There will be landlords—perhaps those who are more likely to join organisations such as the Scottish Association of Landlords—who are aware of best practice and of the range of places where they can signpost a tenant for additional support if they need it. There will also be landlords who might not necessarily have encountered that before—they might not have intended to become a professional landlord and they might never have had a tenant before, let alone one who is in difficulty. If that is a new experience for them, they need to have access to information about how they can support their tenant as well as being aware of the requirement and expectation that they should try to do so.

I mentioned earlier some of the ways in which the Scottish Government funds, supports and works with organisations in the public and voluntary sector to provide those services, but we also have to ensure that landlords and tenants are aware of those sources of support, can confidently engage with the steps that we describe in the pre-action protocol, know what is required of them and are aware of where they can get additional help if they need it.

Again, I recall some of the discussion that you had on this with the earlier panel this morning. I noticed that some of the discussion on whether the permanence of the provisions should be considered in the year 2 housing bill considered the current course of action almost in isolation, instead of comparing it with the alternative course of action.

If we were to consider implementing the provisions in the year 2 housing bill, we would in effect have a situation where the provisions apply in the social rented sector but not in the private rented sector. Then you would bring them in, then let them lapse and then bring them in again. I think that that would lead to significant confusion—almost bewilderment, to be honest—for tenants and landlords and to a significant risk of confusion at tribunal level about precisely how the tribunal is supposed to treat each individual case at various times.

The evidence and experience that we have had from the operation of those two specific temporary provisions indicate that they are both proportionate means of achieving a legitimate objective of the Government, and that they have demonstrated a wider long-term value that transcends the particular circumstances of the pandemic. Having that in-out, in-out approach of letting them lapse and then bringing them back in again would, I think, cause far more confusion than any additional clarity that would come from consultation. I would reinforce the fact that the strong support for those measures—in particular, from organisations that are concerned with the rights and interests of tenants as well as the prevention of homelessness—gives us confidence that the measures will have a positive effect.

Indeed. The proposal will not only close a gap between the social and private rented sectors—by making provision that is permanent in the social rented sector permanent in the private rented sector—but will normalise what, as it made clear in its evidence, the Scottish Association of Landlords considers to be best practice. That is consistent with the general direction of travel; we are looking to close the gap in outcomes generally between the public and private rented sectors, so that outcomes do not depend on where people rent, and we want to raise standards across the board. The measure has received support across the board because it is clear that it will achieve that objective.

Overall, the picture is strong. Since the original charter was introduced, as you will be aware, the regulator monitors and reports against the outcomes in the charter, and that has shown a continued improvement, pretty much year on year. There is a strong view across the sector that, from the its creation to the first review and now to this second review, the charter has been effective and is improving standards.

It is always worth reflecting on the fact that practice and standards vary. Every social landlord will recognise that they can always do things better. It is always appropriate for any organisation, whether public service or private or third sector, to continually reflect on how it can learn lessons and do better. That applies to the regulator as well. We can continually reflect on how the regulator can provide better information for tenants, enabling them to hold their social landlords accountable.

Across the sector, the view and the evidence are strong that the charter has had a strong and pretty consistent impact in improving service.

I do not think that we have concerns that there are major issues with the accuracy of reporting.

As I said, we are looking to propose a change to the Scottish Housing Regulator’s existing functions in the social rented sector, so that it has a greater role in relation to improvement. When the legislation is introduced, it will be for the committee to consider whether we have got the approach right or whether an alternative approach is required.

I look forward to the responses to the current consultation, which we will consider carefully. We will aim to implement the most effective solution possible. I look forward to the committee’s engagement on that, too.

It is the Parliament that has given the responsibilities and duties to the regulator, and the regulator reports to the Parliament. We propose—or, at least, in the current consultation, discuss—some potential changes to the remit of the regulator; as I mentioned earlier to the convener, there is a proposal for a regulator for the private rented sector as well. There will be some discussion, no doubt, about how and to what extent those might integrate, or whether there are reasons why we should keep them fully separate.

The regulator will, I think, be reporting to the committee fairly soon. That is an opportunity for the committee to hold the regulator to account for its work and for the reports that it presents.

It might be that officials have an extra word to add here. I suspect that some of those questions should be put to the SHR. Parliament sets the legislation that sets out the duties of the independent regulator and the Government can propose changes to that legislation, but we do not instruct the SHR on how to perform its functions, or individual social landlords on how they should achieve the framework’s outcomes. Some questions might be more relevant to the SHR than they are to the Government.

Anne Cook might want to add something.