���˿���

I welcome the conversations that I have had with Paul Sweeney, particularly on community-based housing co-operatives. I spent many an enjoyable time on placement when I was training to be a housing officer at a community-based housing co-op, so I absolutely share his passion for them and their place in our housing sector. I thank him for his interest in the area.

Unfortunately, however, I cannot agree to his amendment 440. Although I understand his intentions to ensure that the views of tenants are rightly taken into account in significant decisions relating to their homes, I have reservations. The position that is set out in section 107 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 is that, for a transfer to proceed, a majority of tenants should agree to it. The rationale for the suggested change is not wholly clear, although I appreciate the comments that Mr Sweeney has made about the Reidvale Housing Association.

Moving to a requirement for two thirds of tenants could be viewed as setting out a position in which the expressed wish of a majority of the tenants can be ignored. Given that there has been no consultation with the sector—either landlords or tenants—it is difficult for the Government to support such a change to what has been in place since 2012. I understand that 21 transfers out of the 22 that have been proposed since 2010 have all received well over two thirds of tenant approval. Although that could suggest that the amendment would not be problematic in practice, it could indicate that there is no real need for change as well. For those reasons, I urge Mr Sweeney not to press amendment 440.

Amendments 456 and 423, in the name of Mark Griffin, aim to amend the provisions in the bill to allow social landlords to serve rent increase notices by sending them by regular post. A social landlord is required to provide a tenant with 28 days’ notice of a rent increase and the 28-day period needs to be evidenced. If a notice does not reach the intended recipient, they could be unaware of the rent increase, which could result in a tenant being in rent arrears. Tenants would not be able to evidence any change that they had not received the rent increase notice if regular post is an acceptable service method. There needs to be certainty that the notice has been delivered to the tenant, and a tracked service provides that certainty while regular post does not.

The bill at present, which also allows for electronic or personal service, aligns the service options for the social rented sector with the private rented sector. The amendment would remove the requirement for a tracked service, which would be at odds with the protection that is provided to tenants in the private rented sector.

The bill already provides for two additional methods of delivery. The first is electronic delivery, which reflects the increased use of web-based tenancy management systems, email and paperless communications that, over time, are likely to become the default for the majority of tenants and will primarily be cost neutral for landlords; the second is a tracked postal service to point of delivery, which removes the requirement for a signature. I therefore urge Mark Griffin not to move amendments 456 and 423.

Although I understand the intention behind Mark Griffin’s amendments 457 and 457A, they would prevent a landlord from refusing consent for a mutual exchange on the basis of rent arrears when the criteria that are set out in his amendments are satisfied. Those are that

“one or more children under the age of 18”

live with the tenant, that the tenant’s current home is inadequate and that the proposed exchange home would be suitable. That would apply regardless of the total amount of rent arrears or whether the tenant was currently paying the rent arrears or keeping to a repayment plan. The only situations when a landlord could refuse consent for a mutual exchange would be when a notice of proceedings had already been served on the tenant on conduct grounds or when an eviction order had been granted against the tenant for the current tenancy.

Although Mr Griffin’s amendments would not prevent the landlord from taking steps to recover any rent arrears, those would become former tenant arrears, which are generally more difficult for social landlords to recover and often must be written off, which reduces landlord income and impacts on the service that social landlords provide to tenants and on their ability to maintain affordable rent levels.

Social landlords already have discretion to agree to a mutual exchange between their properties when there are rent arrears, if moving to a property with a lower rent would be more financially sustainable for the tenant and if a repayment plan is put in place.

I accept the points that Mr Griffin made in his remarks about those suffering from domestic violence and instances when there is domestic abuse in the home. I would be happy to have conversations with Mr Griffin in the run-up to stage 3 on aspects of those particular cases when there is a threat or there has been a history of domestic violence. However, on this occasion, I urge him not to move amendments 457 and 457A.

Amendments 232 to 236 aim to allow tenants to apply to their landlord to have the long lease of their rented property converted to ownership. Long leases in this context are leases that have been granted over property for more than 175 years.

The Scottish Parliament considered the issue in 2012 and passed legislation that converted long leases into outright ownership, where the remaining term of the lease was at least 100 years on a specified date. Amendments 232 to 236 would capture long leases that were not automatically converted into ownership by that legislation, provided that there are at least 50 years left to run on the lease. There is a separate amendment to reduce that to five years.

The issue was not discussed during stage 1 evidence or with stakeholders more widely. The 2012 legislation followed from a Scottish Law Commission report on the conversion of long leases. Research undertaken by the SLC, the views of stakeholders and human rights considerations all played an important part in the decision to choose the 100-year period. It was concluded that, when the remaining term of the lease drops below 100 years, the landlord can be considered to have an economic interest in the property, with such interest becoming more significant the nearer the lease is to its termination.

Accordingly, the then Scottish Government took the view that converting a long lease to ownership where there was a minimum of 100 years left to run in the lease would strike the right balance and ensure that everyone’s interests were protected, including the property rights of landlords under article 1, protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights. I note that no new research or evidence has been presented to the Parliament or the Scottish Government to justify the changes that Mr Greer has proposed.

I appreciate that the member’s position is based on constituency cases, which he mentioned in his opening remarks. As I have stated, which I think is exceptionally important, the work that was undertaken by the SLC and the views of stakeholders, as well as the human rights considerations, led to the 100-year period being chosen. I am afraid that, despite the constituency cases that Mr Greer raised with me in the run-up to today’s meeting, I still feel that the correct balance was reached as a result of the work that was undertaken for the 2012 legislation.

There are a number of policy gaps in the amendments and a lot of the detail about how the provisions that they would introduce would work would be left to regulations. Leaving aside the fact that the regulation-making powers are unlikely to be sufficient in that regard, I wish to make a point about the level of compensatory payments to be made to the landlord by the tenant. The calculation to determine the amount to be paid would be set out in regulations but, given what I have said about human rights considerations, the level of the payments is likely to be high, and it would be significantly higher the closer the lease is to the termination date. That might deter tenants from applying to convert their lease, thereby undermining what appears to be the principal aim of Mr Greer’s amendments.

Finally, I point out that there is currently nothing in law that prevents a tenant from approaching their landlord to privately arrange the conversion of their lease to ownership in the circumstances that the amendments seek to address. I therefore urge the member not to press the amendments, and, should he do so, I ask the committee not to support them.

We are committed to making progress on the issues that have been raised by mobile home site residents, and I support the work that Murdo Fraser has been undertaking with them. The Minister for Housing has taken action following Mr Fraser’s members’ business debate in February, including by writing to Ofgem, to the UK Minister for Services, Small Business and Exports, and to local authorities. I hope that the post-implementation review of mobile home site licensing that is to be carried out before the end of this parliamentary session will address some systemic issues.

Amendment 386, in the name of Paul McLennan, will align the definition of the consumer prices index that is used in the mobile homes provisions in the bill with that used in the rent control provisions. The new definition does not change the substance of what was in the previous definition.

I fully support the principle of amendments 21 and 23 on adaptations, that disabled people should be supported regardless of their housing circumstances. However, the amendments are not necessary, as there is already provision in law for that purpose. The Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 established arrangements for the delivery of support for disabled people who require adaptations and who either own or privately rent their homes. Mobile homes, caravans and park homes are not covered by that legislation, but all local authorities have a duty to ensure that the needs of disabled or chronically ill residents are met, whatever their housing circumstances, and to offer support under the provisions of the Chronically Sick And Disabled Persons (Scotland) Act 1972 and the Equality Act 2010.

Since the members’ business debate, my officials have had further engagement with some local authorities that shows that there are differing levels of understanding of the basis of supporting park home residents. The Minister for Housing wrote to council leaders and heads of housing on 22 April to confirm the basis for adaptation of mobile homes in housing legislation and the other legislation that I have mentioned.

Furthermore, we plan to undertake a review of the current housing adaptation system that will make recommendations on how best to improve and streamline the system and better target resources. The scope of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 will be part of the review, so issues relating to adaptations to park and mobile homes will be considered. I have already referred to the review in previous groups.

Amendment 22 is intended to improve access to justice for residents of mobile homes by moving cases from the courts to the First-tier Tribunal. I support the principle of the amendment, but lodging it at this point is premature. The Mobile Homes Act 1983 is complex. It covers Gypsy Traveller sites, so there are equality considerations. Time is needed for effective consultation and policy making to identify how the rights and responsibilities of residents and site owners can best be upheld. After discussion with Mr Fraser, the Minister for Housing and I are therefore committing to consult on the policy that amendment 22 would implement, and we aim to do so before the end of the current parliamentary session, resources permitting.

I ask Murdo Fraser not to move his amendments in this group. If amendments 21 to 23 are moved, I urge the committee not to support them.

I move amendment 386.

The core purpose of landlord registration is to ensure that those who operate as private landlords are fit and proper persons and that tenants and prospective tenants can be assured of that. Although I understand the thinking behind the amendments in this group and share the view that landlord registration is an important way of driving high standards in the private rented sector, a number of the amendments are not necessary, and many could have unintended consequences that would risk the integrity of the core purpose of registration.

Landlord registration is also a high-volume system that includes more than 200,000 landlords and 350,000 properties. Changes to how a system of that scale operates ought to be clear on the benefits that they would achieve, in order to justify the cost to Government, both national and local, and the increase in administrative burdens for landlords. I strongly believe that any significant changes to how registration systems operate should be informed by consultation with local authorities, landlords and tenants.

I appreciate that some amendments in the group may have their origins in data collection and the use of information for rent controls, as we discussed in group 8. I reiterate the commitment that I made when we discussed that group. We share the view that robust data is needed for that purpose, and I invite members who have lodged amendments in that area to join our planned engagement with local authorities over the coming months.

I turn first to Mark Griffin’s amendment 417. Information about sub-landlords is already entered in the landlord register, as they are classed as persons who act for the landlord, albeit that they are not required to register. Requiring sub-landlords to register would involve a duplication of information on the landlord register and would place an administrative burden on local authorities. In addition, the amendment does not consider the other parts of the 2004 act that would need to be considered in order to cater for sub-landlords in that way.

However, I accept the principle of ensuring that information can be sought from sub-landlords to support rent control. In that respect, Government amendments 303 and 304, which were previously agreed to by the committee, will provide a transparent and effective procedure for local authorities and the Scottish ministers to obtain information from landlords and

“any other person acting as landlord”.

I hope that that reassures Mr Griffin that information will be able to be sought from sub-landlords to support the delivery of rent control, in a proportionate way, through means other than changes to the registration system.

Meghan Gallacher mentioned—and we have previously discussed in committee—SLE’s concerns about those areas. The Minister for Housing met SLE very recently and made an offer for SLE to bring forward its proposed solution to the challenge. Ministers have said that we will look seriously at that before stage 3. Given that that work has not been done, I am not in a position to say whether we would support the solution that is put forward by SLE, but we are certainly cognisant of the issue, both from the committee’s previous discussions and the meetings that the minister has had. I reconfirm that we will work through SLE’s proposed solution before stage 3 and will inform the committee whether the Government wishes to take forward that suggestion. Of course, members will have their own views on SLE’s recommendations.

Amendment 418, which is also in the name of Mark Griffin, would add to the landlord register information about rent and size of property. I agree that information about rent and property size are critical to the operation of rent controls, but Government amendments 303, 304 and 313—all of which were previously agreed to—will allow the Scottish ministers and local authorities to seek that information, and it is not necessary to link that with the operation of the landlord register. To do so would change the purpose of landlord registration and of the register, which currently serves to assess and record whether an individual is a fit and proper person to operate as a landlord. The regime and the digital platform are designed around the person applying to be a landlord; the register is therefore neither intended nor designed to be a tool to record detailed information about each property. We ought not to shift the focus and change the purpose of the landlord register without extensive consultation with councils, landlords and tenants.

Mark Griffin’s amendment 488 would add new types of information that must be included in an application to a local authority to be entered in a register of landlords. I recognise that some of that information is useful for tenants. However, I note that a number of the proposed new data categories are already part of the existing fit-and-proper-person test and are already available to tenants and prospective tenants as part of property adverts or can be requested when a tenancy is taken up. I remain unclear on the potential benefits for tenants of the inclusion of some other categories.

As I have said, the purpose of the landlord register is to record who is a fit and proper person to operate as a landlord, and I do not believe that we should change that purpose without consultation. The register does not currently operate as a register of properties. Information is requested at portfolio level, so increasing the data requirements would not be operationally straightforward. To deliver on amendment 488 would involve a very significant change and would require changes to primary and secondary legislation, information technology systems and local authority practices.

For those reasons, I cannot support the amendments.

Amendment 454, in the name of Ross Greer, would delegate the fee-setting function for landlord registration to local authorities. Setting fees at a national level is transparent, predictable and straightforward for landlords, many of whom operate across local authority boundaries. That predictability is also important for local authorities as they manage their own resources.

As members will be aware, landlord registration is an important part of the protections for private rented sector tenants. Ensuring that the process of applying for registration is as straightforward as possible, anywhere in Scotland, is of material importance.

Amendment 408, in the name of Katy Clark, would mean that a new tenant could replace the tenant who had started the process of ending the tenancy and would compel the landlord to enter the tenancy on the same terms as the previous tenancy. Assigning the tenancy on the same terms as the departing tenant, with the landlord’s consent, is the current legal position, and the amendment would not change that. I fully understand the concerns about the impact on other joint tenants who do not wish the tenancy to come to an end, and I, too, want to limit the negative impact on other joint tenants as far as possible. The measures in the bill have been designed to help to do that.

It is very important that people in those circumstances speak to their landlord as soon as possible about their options, which include assigning the tenancy to another person or remaining in the property under a new tenancy. The pre-notice period ensures that there is time for those discussions to take place, and, if it is not possible for tenants to stay, that period enables them to access independent housing support and advice to help them to find suitable alternative accommodation.

I ask Mark Griffin not to press amendment 408 on Katy Clark’s behalf. However, I would welcome further discussions with her on the issue ahead of stage 3 to see whether more needs to be done.

Amendments 378 to 382, in Paul McLennan’s name, will support the operation of the measures in section 38, which will ensure that no joint tenant can be trapped in a tenancy against their will. Amendments 378 and 379 ensure that two months is the minimum pre-notice period and that three months is the maximum pre-notice period. That approach does not change the overall intent, but it is easier to understand than requiring that a 28-day notice to leave be served within a period of 28 days after the expiry of the two-month notice.

The pre-notice period aims to encourage tenants to consider their circumstances and, when possible, discuss their options—assigning the tenancy to another person or remaining in the property—with their landlord. If the final notice was not given within three months and the tenant still wanted to end their tenancy, they would need to start the process again from the beginning.

I thank Meghan Gallacher for the conversations that we have had, in particular in the past couple of days but also prior to that. As I said earlier, the only reason for my not supporting amendment 520 at this point is that, as a Government minister, I feel that it is important to give landlords the opportunity to come forward, should they have grave concerns about the proposals. If they do not, or do not do so in a way that convinces me or Ms Gallacher, I will be happy to support her amendment at stage 3. I have my own views about whether I will be convinced, but I want to give people the opportunity to come forward and express their concerns. However, I am very sympathetic to where Meghan Gallacher is coming from with her amendments.

The challenge—this explains why I am taking your amendments and Mr Simpson’s together—is that, although those amendments deal with two very important aspects of the student population, we must recognise that guarantor challenges do not apply solely to students and might apply to others. That is why I am keen to see what can be done to strengthen the existing avenues of support.

I think that it was Mr Greer who mentioned that some universities have schemes and others do not, and some local authorities do and others do not. I recognise that, and that is the challenge that we have. The push for a more national answer comes because of that patchwork approach, which is a concern to me and to other ministers.

Mr Simpson mentioned that I have talked on a number of occasions about how I want to improve the system that we have at the moment rather than add new systems. I make no apologies for that because, when we make legislation, we are always in danger of making a system more complex to attempt to solve challenges that we all know are there, rather than trying to make the existing system work better and more efficiently. We sometimes overcomplicate things and have a system that is more difficult for people to find a way through by attempting to sort things in a piecemeal way.

That is why I suggest that there is work to be done before stage 3 to see what can be achieved using the set-ups of universities, charities and local authorities. If Mr Greer or Mr Simpson do not feel that we have gone far enough in that work and if they feel that we still require an additional piece of the jigsaw to make that work, they can bring back amendments at stage 3. I believe that, between me and Graeme Dey, for example, when it comes to students, something can be done to improve the current system. That is my suggestion for a way forward for the international student situation and for estranged young people.

Thank you, convener, and good morning. Apologies, but I, too, will not be brief, given the number of members’ amendments in this group. However, I can assure you that this will be the largest speaking note.

I share the intention behind many of the amendments in this group to increase eviction protections in certain circumstances and to strengthen existing penalties where an unlawful eviction or wrongful termination occurs. However, I cannot support them, for the reasons that I will set out. Amendments 119 and 120, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, would prevent private landlords from applying to the tribunal to evict in cases where a tenant or a member of the tenant’s household has a terminal illness. I am very sympathetic to the outcomes that those amendments are seeking to achieve. However, they do not strike the right balance between protection for tenants and the rights of landlords. The amendments would prevent a landlord from recovering a property, regardless of the circumstances, and for an indeterminate period, including where those circumstances relate to their own health or ability to continue as a landlord. We have strong existing protections from unfair eviction, and the tribunal must consider all circumstances in determining whether it would be reasonable to grant an eviction. That would include where a person has a terminal illness.

Sections 24 to 27 of the bill will further strengthen those protections, ensuring that, when an eviction is granted, the tribunal must consider whether there should be a delay to the enforcement of the eviction. That will increase protection for all tenants, including those with a terminal illness, and it will ensure that the rights of tenants and landlords can be appropriately balanced.

However, I appreciate where Meghan Gallacher is coming from. She spoke earlier about bringing compassion to the bill and I assure her that I share that determination. I thank her for the genuinely useful and meaningful conversations that she and I have had over the past few weeks, and I also thank the Marie Curie charity for the direct discussions that we have had.

I accept Meghan Gallacher’s point that the ending of a tenancy via an eviction is exceptionally difficult and that people should be treated sympathetically and provided with support and advice. That will particularly be the case for those with a terminal illness. I am therefore keen to develop guidance for private landlords that will set out good practice in this area. I will seek input from organisations that support those who are facing terminal illness, such as Marie Curie, to ensure that tenants are supported as early as possible and to avoid the ending of a tenancy in eviction whenever possible. I hope that Meghan Gallacher will be able to contribute to those conversations and meetings.

Meghan Gallacher also mentioned amendments on succession, which I believe are in a later group. Without spoiling the surprises that are in my speaking notes for group 22, I am also keen to work with her on many aspects that relate to that group.

Amendments 122 to 129, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, would add terminal illness as a specific consideration for the courts or the tribunal when exercising the new duties to consider a delay to the enforcement of an eviction. Although the bill will allow the courts or the tribunal to take terminal illness into account, I understand the desire to highlight this specific issue. However, further consideration is needed on how best to address it in legislation. I am happy to work with Meghan Gallacher to lodge amendments at stage 3 to ensure that terminal illness is added to the list of things to be taken into account. On that basis, I ask her not to move those amendments and to instead work with me ahead of stage 3.

Amendment 491, in the name of Fulton MacGregor, would amend the new duty to consider a delay to the enforcement of an eviction to include a consideration of the detrimental impact it could have on a landlord that is a company or a business. I confirm that, although the bill refers to a specific number of factors, that is a non-exhaustive list and the tribunal may take all circumstances into account. The impact on the landlord, regardless of whether it is an individual, a business or another entity, will be a key factor in determining whether it is reasonable to delay. The amendment is therefore not necessary and I ask Fulton MacGregor not to move it.

Amendments 163 to 167, in the name of Edward Mountain, would prevent the tribunal and courts from ordering a delay to an eviction of longer than three months. I understand that those amendments respond to concerns from landlords about the length of any delay. However, I do not think that it is appropriate to restrict the discretion of the tribunal and courts. There are also issues with the drafting of the amendments that mean that, in practice, there could be no delay, or a minimum delay, which would undermine the purpose of the measures in the bill. I ask Edward Mountain not to move those amendments.

Amendment 452, in the name of Willie Rennie, and amendment 487, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, would create further exceptions to the duty to consider a delay when the property is needed for religious purposes and when

“the landlord is the Church of Scotland”.

I recognise the concerns that have prompted those amendments. However, I am not persuaded that an exemption is appropriate. Existing exemptions to the duty reflect areas in which it would rarely be reasonable to delay enforcement and mainly relate to the conduct of the tenant. For all other repossession grounds, the tribunal is the correct place to balance the rights of tenants and landlords. The type of landlord or the purpose for which the property will be used do not, in and of themselves, merit an exemption, particularly when such an exemption would remove the protection that the measures in the bill are intended to provide for tenants.

The requirement on the tribunal to take all the circumstances into account, including for the landlord, will ensure that a delay to an enforcement is only ordered when it is reasonable to do so. That will protect the interests of landlords as well as tenants. I therefore ask Willie Rennie and Meghan Gallacher not to move those amendments.

I agree. The conversations that I have had directly with Emma Roddick on the issue have absolutely strengthened my opinion that there can be—indeed, in some circumstances, there has been—a misuse of that ground. That is why the existing penalties are very strong, but, regardless of that, I think that it still can happen. One aspect of that might be the lack of monitoring, which is why I am keen that that is looked at in the review of repossessions. As with other aspects of the bill, we must not just be satisfied that something is in the legislation if it is not being used to the benefit of the tenant or, in some circumstances, the benefit of the landlord; we must look at why those things are still happening. I am sure that monitoring is one of the areas that will come up in the review of repossession grounds.