���˿���

Meghan Gallacher raises an issue that SLE has raised directly with the minister. He has offered to work with others to see whether something can be done on the issue before stage 3. It is a very complex issue—Meghan Gallacher has just laid out but one example of that—which requires careful consideration and, potentially, multiple changes in multiple pieces of law. That is why the minister is keen to carry on that conversation with SLE. We would, of course, be happy to discuss the matter directly with Meghan Gallacher as well.

I was going to talk about that in my very next paragraph. Previously, social landlords were required to meet higher standards for their rented properties than those for private landlords, but the strengthened repairing standard, which was effective from 1 March 2024, has largely aligned the standards across both rented sectors. There are now very limited areas where rented sector standards are not fully aligned, and the Scottish Government has an ambition to ensure full alignment of housing standards in the future.

Adding a further two new housing standards via amendments 257 and 267 would create considerable confusion for landlords, tenants and local authorities as to which standards the landlord must comply with. There are already broad powers to amend the existing standards, and I consider that using those powers would be a more appropriate way to address any gaps that members believe exist in the regulatory requirements.

I am happy to work with Ms Chapman and Ms Burgess, in the run-up to stage 3, on areas where they are concerned that the gap in standards remains between the social and private rented sectors, in order to see whether any changes are required. However, those changes might not need to be made through the bill, as it may be possible to make them in regulation, as I have already mentioned.

Amendments 438, 439, 557 and 558, in the name of Ariane Burgess, would create a power for a local authority to inspect a house that is entered in the landlord register and to impose a fine of up to £10,000 on the landlord if the house does not comply with the tolerable standard.

There are existing enforcement mechanisms for the repairing standard under the 2006 act and for the tolerable standard under the 1987 act. Under the terms of the 2006 act, the First-tier Tribunal can impose a repairing standard enforcement order if a property fails the repairing standard. Under section 30 of the 2006 act, a local authority can issue a works notice if a property is considered to be substandard—a category that would include properties that fail the tolerable standard.

Those enforcement mechanisms build in a period during which the landlord can remedy the defect in a property, and Ms Burgess’s amendments would not afford landlords that period of grace. Furthermore, it is not clear in those amendments whether local authorities would be expected to inspect all private rented tenancies in their areas or to do so only when they had a suspicion that standards were not being complied with. I therefore ask Ms Burgess not to move the amendments, because there are existing measures to deal with those issues and existing powers that can be used to strengthen the repairing standard, the tolerable standard and the inspection process.

I will come back to Ms Gallacher in writing about the consultation, but it will be launched this autumn. I am happy to reflect on the points that she has raised and to get back to her once I have had a further opportunity to speak to Paul McLennan, who leads on the issue, about where the drafting of the consultation has got to, and what its scope will be. If she will allow me to come back to her in writing once I have had those discussions, I will be happy to do so.

Amendments 552 and 555, in the name of Jamie Halcro Johnston, seek to restrict policy making in any future attempt to regulate heating systems. The Government’s approach has long recognised that there might be a need for secondary heating systems, particularly in rural and island communities, and our approach protects the use of direct-emission secondary heating systems if required. For example, the recent new build heat standard already allows for secondary heating systems of the kind specified in amendment 552. It should be made very clear that a vote against that amendment is not a vote against wood-burning stoves or other secondary heating systems, as the amendment is not needed to protect their use.

The fact is that amendments 552 and 555 are simply unnecessary. My concern with them is that they could tie the hands of future Governments, particularly where there remains scope for technological advancement. That is not appropriate, and therefore I cannot support the amendments.

I thank Mr Halcro Johnston for lodging his amendments, because they give me the opportunity to restate the Government’s position on the matter, as set out in the regulations that came before the Parliament very recently.

As I have said, the Government absolutely recognises the need for secondary heating systems, particularly but not only in rural and island communities. The reason for not supporting the amendments is that they are unnecessary—it is not a reflection of any change in or diminution of the Government’s policy in that area. I absolutely reassure Mr Halcro Johnston on that point.

Amendments 470 to 473, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, would require Scottish ministers, in summary, to publish an accessible homes standard, which would include building and design standards for new-build homes. The amendments would also oblige ministers to publish guidance on the design of housing for varying needs; those obligations would require to be met within two years of commencement, and regular review would be required thereafter.

I understand and fully support Ms Duncan-Glancy’s desire to ensure the accessibility and adaptability of Scotland’s homes. Indeed, during the second half of 2023, we consulted on proposals to do just that. Homes have never simply been bricks and mortar; good housing and homes that support our health, wellbeing, life chances and job prospects are integral. Everyone should have a home that brings them those chances and opportunities.

The housing to 2040 strategy committed to developing and introducing an all-tenure Scottish accessible homes standard. We also reaffirmed, within that strategy, our commitment to review the “Housing for Varying Needs” design guide, which, although well regarded and still considered to be a good design benchmark, was produced in 1998. We recognise the urgency of that work, and we remain committed to introducing those changes. The analysis of the responses to the consultation on those matters is now being considered, and it will help inform our next steps.

As a result, the inclusion of amendments 470 and 473 would be premature in advance of full consideration of the feedback from the many respondents who have submitted their views. I assure Ms Duncan-Glancy that, although I oppose her amendments, it is not because the Scottish Government is not supportive of the principles behind them but because we are giving detailed consideration to the consultation feedback at this point. I assure Ms Duncan-Glancy that that important work will not be delayed, because of our work on the housing emergency, for example, and I look forward to engaging the member as we progress matters.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 551 and 561 would oblige Scottish ministers to provide a scheme for adaptations to housing that are intended to improve accessibility. The 2006 act already provides a right for a private tenant to carry out work on their house in order to make it

“suitable for the accommodation, welfare or employment of any disabled person”

who lives there. As the legislative basis for adaptations provision already exists, the amendments are not necessary and, indeed, risk creating a confusing regulatory landscape. Furthermore, we plan to undertake a review of the current housing adaptations system, which will make recommendations on how best to improve and streamline that system and how to target resources better. As the scope of the coverage of the 2006 act will be part of that review, I consider the amendments not to be necessary and therefore cannot support them.

In closing, having addressed all the amendments in the group, I ask the committee to vote for amendment 231, in Paul McLennan’s name, and I ask other members with amendments in the group not to move or press them. If those amendments are moved or pressed, I ask the committee not to vote for them, for the reasons that I have laid out.

Mr Sweeney raised that with me in our discussions. Given that it is only a few days since we had that discussion, I have not had time to take advice on the particular details, but I reassure him that I am seeking further advice to see whether we could work together on something for stage 3. I will be happy to get back to the member once I have received that advice.

Enforcement is incredibly important, because there is no point in having rights and obligations if those are not being enforced. As I will come on to say, I am keen to work with a number of members to see what can be done. Many of the improvement issues can be dealt with in a non-legislative way, and the conversations that I hope to have over the summer will also show whether there are gaps in primary legislation that we need to come back to. Enforcement measures, such as fines, may be something that we will have to come back to by using legislation.

Amendment 249, in the name of Daniel Johnson, and amendment 385, in the name of Ariane Burgess, would provide that a tenant could withhold rent payments when the landlord failed to meet the repairing standard. Although I agree that the landlord should always meet the repairing standard, such issues are already provided for in law. Section 26(2)(b) of the 2006 act already enables the First-tier Tribunal to make a rent relief order when a landlord has failed to comply with a repairing standard enforcement order. A rent relief order is one that reduces the rent by up to 90 per cent for the duration of the order.

Amendments 249 and 385 would both put the onus on the tenant to determine whether they could withhold rent, rather than having a judicial assessment of whether the rent could be withheld. That approach would create the risk that a tenant could be left with significant rent arrears to make up if they were to get the assessment of the repairing standard wrong, and I would be greatly concerned about that change. The existing rent relief process, under section 27 of the 2006 act, enables the First-tier Tribunal to issue a rent relief order. That mechanism provides reassurance to the tenant that the reduced rent will not have to be paid back at a later date and that they can legitimately pay less rent without any fear of later repercussions.

In my view, amendments 249 and 385, although exceptionally well intentioned, would not improve tenants’ rights.

I am just about to come on to that issue, too, convener. As I have said, there are existing tenants’ rights in relation to repairs and enforcement. The amendments that we are dealing with today and the discussions that I have had with members highlight the fact that those rights are meaningful only if tenants and relevant bodies know how to use them and if there are no barriers to using them. Convener, the point that you have made with that one example, which is just one of the many examples that we have discussed under this group of amendments, is an exceptionally important one.

It is important that, as long as we are looking at how the regulatory framework can be improved—for example, through primary or secondary legislation—we also look at what additional non-legislative support can be put in place. We can explore a range of options with the potential to better enable tenants to exercise their rights, such as raising further awareness of existing rights and providing routes of redress such as third-party reporting, where the local authority applies to the tribunal to enforce necessary repairs on behalf of a tenant. Other forms of practical support and advice are available to help tenants navigate the tribunal process.

I am keen to work with stakeholders and members to consider what additional interventions would be feasible and effective to achieve the policy objectives behind many of the amendments in this group. I still do not believe that primary legislative change is required here, but work definitely is, and I hope that that work will allow us to meet those policy objectives.

Amendment 254, in the name of Ariane Burgess, would provide Scottish ministers with the power to delegate to such a public body as they consider appropriate the function of providing officers under the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949 with the ability to do certain things, such as inspect workers accommodation. I recognise the need to ensure that accommodation for agricultural workers is fit for habitation, but I do not agree that amendment 254 would provide the reassurance that is being sought. It is unclear whether the amendment creates a function that can be delegated, and it is also not clear that wages officers under the 1949 act would have the expertise to enable them to inspect the standard of property, given that their main function relates to the wages paid to agricultural workers. Scoping work has been on-going to help us better understand the full context of the issue and potential solutions.

Local authorities are currently responsible for enforcement of legal housing standards. Enforcement generally happens on a reactive basis, when local authorities are made aware of concerns about the condition of property and can respond. Although local authorities would welcome stronger powers to address poor agricultural seasonal worker accommodation, enforcement would pose challenges for local authorities. The Government is fully committed to further engagement with local authorities and other interested parties on that issue, and development work to understand how it can be addressed is on-going.

I therefore ask the member not to move amendment 254.

I absolutely recognise the point that you are making, and I would be happy to provide that information in writing to you and the committee following today’s discussions.

Amendments 477 and 479, in the name of Paul Sweeney, would oblige Scottish ministers to provide a process by which a tenant may request a local authority to buy the house that they rent if that house does not comply with housing standards. Although I support the principle that private rented homes should be of good quality, the proposed amendments could lead to the local authority purchasing a substandard property instead of enforcing housing standards. There is no need for a statutory right for a tenant to request that a local authority exercise its existing powers to make a compulsory purchase of a property; tenants can approach their local authority and make such a request at present.

There are also existing enforcement mechanisms for local authorities when a property fails to meet the tolerable standard or the repairing standard, both of which I have talked about in relation to previous amendments in the group. Where a landlord has failed to comply with housing standards, it would be more appropriate for those standards to be enforced than to expect the local authority to purchase the property. Although I appreciate the intention behind the amendments, I consider them to be unnecessary and I urge the member not to move them. However, as with previous amendments in the group, I am very happy to work with Mr Sweeney to see whether there is a non-legislative approach that can be taken to achieve his aim of greater connectivity between compulsory purchase orders and tenants knowing their rights in that area. Indeed, I thank him for the conversations that we have already had on that point.

Amendment 489, in the name of Ariane Burgess, aims to enable the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland to consult an independent person when considering whether a landlord has complied with certain aspects of the repairing standard. Although I understand the reasoning behind the amendment, what is proposed is already provided for in law. The First-tier Tribunal for Scotland Housing and Property Chamber (Procedure) Regulations 2017 already give the tribunal very wide powers to obtain expert evidence. In addition, paragraph 2 of schedule 2 to the 2006 act enables the tribunal to request and consider a report from a third party. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment, given that what is proposed is already amply provided for in law.

Amendment 490, in the name of Daniel Johnson, would impose an obligation on an owner or occupier of the property in a tenement building to take steps to ensure that utility companies have access to common parts of the tenement for the purpose of maintenance, repair and installation work. Utility companies already have access rights under other legislation. The Electricity Act 1989, sections 17 and 19 of the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004 and secondary legislation that was made in relation to the 2004 act already provide the framework for access to areas of tenements for maintenance purposes, including access for gas and heating utility companies to install services. Accordingly, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, and I ask Mr Johnson not to move it.

Daniel Johnson’s amendment raises an important point about improvements, which Mark Griffin has detailed. The work that I have undertaken to prepare for this meeting suggests that we are in a good place in that regard, but, if Daniel Johnson believes that there are remaining concerns, I am happy to look at that before stage 3 and to speak to him and providers in that area to see whether those concerns are shared.

Work is on-going with the Scottish Law Commission to consider potential reforms to the law on tenement management schemes in the 2004 act, and that work, which will report in spring 2026, might assist with some of those areas. However, if Mr Griffin and Mr Johnson are still concerned about the issue, we are happy to come back to the points that they have raised, whether in relation to superfast broadband or to other areas, because it is exceptionally important that we look at those aspects. I am happy to take the matter away and seek further reassurance.

Although I recognise the intent behind amendment 516, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, to make all new dwellings safer, I cannot support an amendment that seeks to change subordinate legislation without consultation. The Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004, which prevent the installation of combustible external wall cladding systems on relevant buildings, were confirmed in 2022, following consultation the previous year. A formal review process would be needed to support a change in the scope of those regulations, and evidence to support such a change would be essential. The safety case for change and the economic and social impacts require to be understood, quantified and consulted on before an informed decision can be made.

Many will be aware that, as part of our response to the Grenfell tower inquiry phase 2 report, we have committed to a further broad review of standards, and a call for evidence on our current fire safety provisions will be launched this autumn. That will provide an opportunity for the issues that have been raised in Meghan Gallacher’s amendments to be considered and for relevant evidence to be gathered. The call for evidence will support us in identifying and prioritising improvements to our fire safety standards, and I believe that that is the correct way of moving forward with the issues that Ms Gallacher has raised in her amendment. Accordingly, I cannot support the amendment today, but I hope that the on-going consultation will assist with the process.

I will briefly summarise. The Scottish Government is absolutely determined to bring forward Awaab’s law in the social rented sector and the private rented sector. The ways of doing it are different for those two sectors because of the legislation, but the end point for them is absolutely the same. I am happy to work with Mr Simpson on that in the run-up to stage 3.