���˿���

I recognise that, which is why am more than happy to work with you and Maggie Chapman on the timings for how long some of the decisions can, and should, take. I appreciate the support that a person can draw from the company of their pet, and that the costs that would be incurred by placing them in a cattery or kennels can be quite substantial, even over a short period of time. As I have set out, although there are reasons for the timings that the Government has proposed, Emma Roddick’s and Maggie Chapman’s amendments have importantly highlighted the issues and that we do not have the balance correct. I am more than happy to see what can be done before stage 3 in order to try to alleviate some of the concerns and to assist with the points that Emma Roddick has just made.

Amendment 370 in the name of Paul McLennan is a minor technical amendment correcting a previous typo, which makes no change to the effect of the provision.

Amendments 168 to 172 and amendments 180 to 182, in the name of Edward Mountain, relate to reasonable conditions for approval to keep a pet. I recognise that Mr Mountain is seeking to provide greater clarity and certainty in the bill with regard to ensuring that ministers make use of the regulation-making powers that the bill provides for and on some of the detail that they should cover. For example, that would include setting out that it would be a reasonable condition for approval for the landlord to require the tenant to have the property professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy.

I note that, in order to make those additional rights operational, regulations will need to be introduced to set out further detail. The details of what would be considered an unreasonable refusal or reasonable conditions for approval must be developed in consultation with landlords, tenants and other relevant stakeholders. I firmly believe that that is the right approach, and that is why the bill specifically includes statutory provisions that require consultation for the exercise of the regulation-making powers under the affirmative procedure. We will include in that work the aspects that are highlighted by these amendments, and I therefore ask Mr Mountain not to move them.

Amendments 26 and 27, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would amend the bill so that the Scottish ministers “must” make use of the regulation-making powers in the bill to set out when it is reasonable for a landlord to refuse to consent to a tenant keeping a pet. I can reassure members of the committee that, although the provisions as drafted use the word “may”, making use of the regulation-making powers will be an essential part of the bill’s implementation. Effective guidance will be essential to the successful implementation of those measures, as will ensuring that landlords are provided with sufficient information to inform their decisions. I therefore ask the member not to move those amendments.

I turn to the other amendments in the group, which are in the name of Emma Roddick. Amendments 528 and 529 seek to provide greater clarity and certainty in the bill. Current provisions in the bill already mean that refusal and any consent conditions must be reasonable—which is the appropriate test—and amendment 528 is therefore not needed.

Amendment 529 includes aspects that the regulations may cover, and I do not believe that the amendment is necessary either. As I have made clear, we are committed to consulting further with landlords and tenants on the detail that should be included in regulations under the affirmative procedure, in order to support the operation of the new rights. There is already a duty in the bill in connection with that, and I can reassure members that the aspects that are covered in the amendment will also form part of that work.

On that basis, I ask Ms Roddick not to move amendments 528 and 529.

Amendments 530 and 531 relate to the refusal of a request to keep a pet by a social landlord. They would make it a condition that landlord refusal is

“necessary and proportionate”

and that there is

“clear reasoning or supporting evidence”.

A tenant who is unhappy about the landlord’s decision to refuse their request can appeal using the landlord’s complaints process, and has a further route of redress beyond that to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. I believe that any additional conditions for refusal are best developed, once again, through consultation and engagement with the sector and set through secondary legislation.

Amendment 533 seeks to provide that, where a social landlord fails to respond to a pet request within the period required, the landlord is “deemed to have consented”. What the member is seeking is provided for by new paragraph 8H, which is inserted into the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 by section 30(3) of the bill. On that basis, I do not think that anything more is needed to deliver what is being sought, and I therefore ask Emma Roddick not to move the amendment.

Amendments 534 and 563 would provide for a new appeal route if a social landlord withdraws consent for a pet because the tenant has not complied with the reasonable conditions imposed. All social landlords provide their tenants with a written tenancy agreement, which sets out their tenancy obligations, including the conditions to which the tenant is required to adhere in relation to keeping pets. Any breach of tenancy conditions could result in appropriate and proportionate action being taken by the landlord, which could include, where necessary, withdrawal of consent to keep a pet.

I believe that, if any changes are required to the existing process for withdrawal of consent by social landlords, those are best developed through consultation and engagement with the sector, and set through secondary legislation, following public and parliamentary scrutiny. I therefore ask Ms Roddick not to move the amendments.

In summary, for the reasons that I have set out, I ask Emma Roddick, Maggie Chapman and Edward Mountain not to press or move their amendments in the group.

I turn to amendments 173 to 179, in the name of Edward Mountain, in relation to making changes to let property.

Amendment 173 places a statutory duty on a tenant who has made a category 1 or category 2 change to a let property to ensure that the property is returned to its original state at the end of the tenancy, unless the landlord agrees otherwise. That might discourage some tenants from making use of their right to make changes to the let property, and even perceived improvements might have to be stripped back if the landlord did not agree that they could remain, with no test of the reasonableness or proportionality of that requirement. Measures in the bill enable the Scottish ministers, following consultation, to set out through regulation a non-exhaustive list of reasonable conditions that a landlord might set, where they consent to a category 2 change, such as reinstatement at the end of a tenancy, where it was reasonable in the circumstances to do so. Where a tenant did not view that as a reasonable condition, they would have a route of redress through the tribunal.

In relation to amendments 174 to 179, I recognise that Mr Mountain is seeking to provide greater clarity and certainty in the bill as well as to ensure that ministers make use of the regulation-making powers. I reassure committee members that, although the current drafting of the provisions uses the word “may”, making use of these regulation-making powers will be an essential part of the implementation. The framework that relates to personalisation would require that detail be filled in via regulations in order to set out the pertinent definitions.

I understand that landlords and tenants will be keen to understand what it will be possible to do without consent under category 1—for example, putting up a picture—and what will fall under category 2, such as painting walls, which will need consent. However, I am clear that it is essential that the detail of the types of changes that fall into each category is best developed through consultation and engagement with the sector and set through secondary legislation. That is why the bill specifically includes statutory provisions that require consultation for the exercise of the regulation-making powers under the affirmative procedure. That will ensure that we take account of landlords’ and tenants’ views. It will also ensure further public and parliamentary scrutiny of how the powers are used.

Amendment 252, in the name of Maggie Chapman, seeks to set out some of the detail of category 1 changes that would not require the landlord’s permission. The amendment is exceptionally broad in scope and would allow for a very broad range of changes to the outside of a property without the landlord’s involvement. Although I recognise that the member has specified in the amendment that the change must be reasonable, as these would be category 1 changes, the landlord would have no ability to prevent the change, if given prior knowledge, or recourse, where they did not view the change as reasonable after it was carried out.

When providing new rights to tenants, legislation must strike the right balance with the rights of landlords. Amendment 252 would not do that, so I cannot support it. The detail of the changes that are to be included in categories 1 and 2 are best provided through the secondary legislation that I have mentioned and developed through consultation with landlords and tenants. Existing measures in the bill provide the framework for that, and that is the right way to facilitate greater rights for tenants while respecting landlords’ rights.

Amendment 262, which is also in the name of Maggie Chapman, sets out a broad range of changes that a disabled tenant or a tenant who is a guardian or carer of a disabled member of the household could make without needing permission. I am very sympathetic to the outcome that Ms Chapman is seeking to achieve and I, too, wish to see the lives of disabled tenants, guardians and carers made easier. However, as with amendment 252, this amendment would allow for a broad range of potentially very significant changes to a let property without any involvement of the landlord. Setting that out in the bill without consultation or engagement on the provisions with tenants and landlords would not enable us to ensure that we have the right balance between the respective rights.

Existing measures in the bill provide the overarching framework that is needed for us to get this right. As I indicated, further consultation is required to inform the types of changes that would fall into categories 1 and 2. The regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which will ensure additional scrutiny from Parliament. That is the best way to deliver rights in the area while ensuring that they are compatible with landlords’ rights.

I therefore ask the members not to press the amendments in this group.

Graham Simpson’s amendment 73 seeks to place restrictions on private landlords’ guarantor requirements, including for purpose-built student accommodation. I recognise the member’s good intention with the amendment, which I think was prompted by concerns in relation to non-UK domiciled students in particular. However, it could inadvertently have negative consequences for those whom it tries to protect.

Although I understand that views on the place of guarantors in the private rented sector vary, the ability to request a suitable guarantor mitigates the risk for the landlord should the tenant not pay the rent or other tenancy-related costs. During our recent engagement with the Scottish Association of Landlords, it raised significant concerns about the impact of the amendment. For many landlords, asking for a suitable UK-based guarantor is part of facilitating a let that might otherwise not go ahead, such as when the tenant does not have a stable income, has a poor credit score or is unable to provide suitable references. Without a guarantor, the tenancy would be too much of a financial risk for many landlords and would simply not go ahead. The amendment might also have an adverse effect on the landlord’s ability to obtain rent guarantee insurance, which is another safeguard that landlords use to manage financial risk.

Imposing restrictions on the type of guarantor that a landlord could use would be likely to result in a reduction in the number of landlords who felt able to let to students and other low-income tenants, making it harder for the latter to access a home in the private rented sector. I am sure that that is not the outcome that Graham Simpson is seeking, but it might be the end result in practice. As I outlined in relation to amendments that were debated in the group on student tenancies, I also have significant concerns about the impact on PBSA and continued investment in that sector.

Many alternative options already exist for tenants who are unable to provide a suitable guarantor, such as payment of rent in advance or local authority and third sector rental guarantee schemes. Given the potential for negative unintended consequences, I ask Mr Simpson not to press amendment 73.

My preference would be for a non-legislative approach. That is what can be done. The challenge when it comes to guarantors—particularly, but not only, for students—has been recognised for long enough. That non-legislative approach would be my preference. Members might not feel that we can make sufficient progress on those concerns by stage 3 through a non-legislative approach, and they are free to do whatever they wish at stage 3, regardless of what I say. However, it would be my intent to try to work before stage 3 on whether we could take that through in a non-legislative manner.

Amendment 130, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, would ensure that provision is made in regulations that a tenant may pay a tenancy deposit directly to the scheme administrator. I am not opposed to that amendment in principle, but it would be a major policy change that requires careful consideration to ensure that it would be workable and would have no unintended consequences for tenants or landlords.

We already have regulation-making powers via the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 to make any necessary changes in that regard, and we plan to exercise those powers following passage of the bill to reduce the likelihood of deposits being unclaimed. I am happy to commit that, as part of the work, which requires consultation with tenants, landlords and the tenancy deposit schemes, we will explore the model that Ms Gallacher has proposed in her amendment. That is the appropriate way and time to consider the issue further and to ensure that there are no negative impacts or unintended consequences. I ask her not to move amendment 130, on the basis of the reassurances that I have set out on the work that we will undertake.

Amendment 190, in the name of Maggie Chapman, has two parts: restrictions on the payment of advanced rent and the reduction of the maximum tenancy deposit to one month’s rent. On advanced rent, I recognise the concerns that are being raised. The ability to pay advanced rent is currently one of the options that can help to facilitate a let when a tenant is unable to show that they have sufficient income, cannot demonstrate creditworthiness or cannot provide a suitable guarantor. Current requirements restrict that to no more than six months’ rent.

Although I am sympathetic to the outcomes that are being sought, I have concerns that the proposed restrictions could result in landlords choosing not to rent to tenants who are unable to provide a suitable guarantor or demonstrate that they are able to afford the tenancy, but who could have previously afforded to pay rent in advance. That could create an unintended barrier to obtaining accommodation, potentially increasing the risk of homelessness.

Although I am unable to support the amendment as set out, I wish to explore further with Ms Chapman, should she be agreeable, the potential for a reduction in the maximum amount of rent that a landlord could accept as advanced rent, with a view to bringing back an amendment at stage 3 on that issue.

Amendment 190 also seeks to reduce the maximum deposit payment from the equivalent of two months’ rent to one month’s rent. Although I understand that the intention is to reduce barriers to entering the PRS market, that change might have adverse effects for prospective tenants and could also lead to landlords being unwilling to let to certain tenants—for example, those on lower incomes—given an increased risk of recovering rent arrears or property damage at the end of a tenancy.

In addition, the measures in the bill that create rights for tenants to make category 1 changes to a let property—changes that do not require the permission of the landlord—are based on the current deposit maximum of two months. I fully understand Ms Chapman’s intention, and I am supportive of tenants’ rights, as is clearly demonstrated by the Government’s introduction of the package of measures in the bill. I ask Ms Chapman not to move amendment 190. As I have set out, I commit to exploring further restrictions on the payment of advanced rents for stage 3.

I turn to Edward Mountain’s amendment 184. I understand Mr Mountain’s desire to increase the quality and provision of social housing and to tackle the housing emergency. I share that aim. Although I am keen for unclaimed deposits to be put to good use, I do not believe that it is appropriate for those funds—funds that belong to the people who have lived in the private rented sector—to be used for that purpose.

As we set out when the bill was introduced, we intend those funds to be used to help those who are living in the private rented sector, by supporting the provision of advice, assistance and services and by preventing homelessness. I hope that that will achieve the member’s objective of tackling the housing emergency, although in a different way and through the private rented sector itself.

Amendments 374 and 396, in the name of Paul McLennan, respond to concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee regarding the scope of the regulation-making power in section 31 in relation to the use of unclaimed funds. On reflection, I agree with that committee, and those amendments therefore remove the regulation-making power.

In line with the removal of that power, amendment 371 would ensure that unclaimed tenancy deposit funds can be used to support prospective tenants in the private rented sector as well as to support existing tenants. As I have discussed with Mr Greer, that would enable unclaimed funds to be used for projects and activities to support access to the private rented sector. For example, they could be used to support guarantor schemes.

Amendments 372, 373, 375 and 376 make minor and technical changes to the bill. Amendment 377 seeks to provide clarity that the provisions cover existing, and future, private residential tenancies and student tenancies. I ask members to support those amendments to ensure a more robust framework for the use of unclaimed tenancy deposit funds.

In summary, for the reasons given and in light of the assurances that I have offered, I ask Graham Simpson, Ross Greer, Meghan Gallacher, Maggie Chapman and Edward Mountain not to press or move their amendments in this group. If the amendments are pressed or moved, I urge members to reject them but to support the amendments in the name of Paul McLennan.

The reasons that I have set out are, in essence, about the impacts on landlords, particularly on smaller landlords who might still be moving over a local authority boundary and therefore operating in two systems. I appreciate where Mr Greer is coming from and the point that is being made. However, as we have moved through the bill, I have been very conscious of the administrative burden particularly on, but not only on, small landlords, as well as the importance of encouraging people into the private rented sector, both as landlords and as investors. That is why, I am afraid to say, Mr Greer and I disagree on the amendment.

The amendment also appears to seek to link fee levels with compliance with other legal requirements. I reassure members that compliance with the law is a key component of the fit and proper person test applied by local authorities, and it is not necessary to link that with the level of fees. A critical consideration is already made in determining whether someone is suitable to be a landlord at all.

Amendment 419, in the name of Mark Griffin, would reduce the registration period to one year from three and require more than 200,000 landlords to re-register and potentially pay an annual registration fee. That would be costly and burdensome for landlords and local authorities. As I am not persuaded by the argument as to why such a significant change to the operation of the registration process is considered necessary, I ask the member not to move amendment 419.

Amendment 455, also in the name of Mark Griffin, would open up access to the data held on landlord registers. As applications include personal and sensitive data, careful consideration of data protection rules would be needed before considering the publishing of such information—if opening up such access would even be possible. Elements of the register are already searchable by the public, including basic details of landlords, letting agents and property addresses, or are available upon application.

The fact that a landlord has been entered on the register confirms that a local authority has made the necessary assessment that they are a fit and proper person, and such a determination means that the landlord has provided the prescribed information needed for such assessment. There is also a wide range of information that tenants are already entitled to request from their landlord. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment.

Amendment 503, in the name of Maggie Chapman, proposes to add new considerations to the fit and proper person test for landlord registration, including where the landlord has tried to raise the rent above the cap, has failed to set the rent in accordance with rent control restrictions, or has been subject to a wrongful termination order. Although I share Ms Chapman’s view that the assessment of suitability to be a landlord is a critical part of the protection for tenants, and that a landlord’s compliance with the law on rent and termination of a tenancy should be part of that assessment, the points that are made in amendment 503 are already covered by section 85(2)(c) of the 2004 act. As such actions would be contraventions of landlord and tenant law, they would already be relevant considerations in the fit and proper person test. By picking out those particular contraventions, we weaken the generality of the existing provision, without adding any particular protections. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment.

Amendment 420, in the name of Mark Griffin, would introduce a requirement to publish statistics on average rent, supported by the information that would be available as a consequence of amendment 418, which I cannot support for the reasons that I have already set out. I would just reflect that the Government’s amendment 328, which has already been agreed to, would enable the processing of information obtained from landlords in connection with rent control for the purposes of publishing aggregate statistics on rent levels. I hope that that reassures the member.

Lastly, I turn to amendment 421, also in the name of Mark Griffin. Of course, it is important that tenants are aware of their rights and are empowered to use them—I share Mr Griffin’s views in that respect. However, as local authorities have existing legal duties to provide advice and assistance to both landlords and tenants on landlord registration and other aspects of landlord and tenant law, I am not clear on the need for a specific statutory requirement to promote the register and, as a result, I cannot support the amendment.

Again, I reassure members that ministers are committed to continuing to raise awareness of tenancy rights and responsibilities, and to see what more can be done about that after the bill is, as I hope, passed by the Parliament. We will seek to work with tenants, landlords and stakeholders to do that in the most effective way.

I am content that that is clear and that we are covered. If Ms Chapman can persuade me, before stage 3, that her points are not covered by the 2004 act, I will be happy to look at bringing the amendment back.

I have looked very carefully—again, only yesterday—at what is proposed in the UK Renters’ Rights Bill. There are areas where aspects in Scotland provide better support for tenants, and there are, of course, different aspects of the overall application of a tenancy that mean that we cannot just replicate what is happening in a UK bill.

I am happy to carry on conversations about that between stages 2 and 3, should there be a situation in which tenants’ rights are lesser in Scotland than they are in other parts of the UK. That is not how I look at the legislation, but I am more than happy to be challenged if we feel that our rights are falling short of rights elsewhere. I am also content that there are other areas where the rights of a tenant are still better served in Scotland. In addition, sometimes, the rights of the landlord are better served by the current circumstances. However, if there are aspects in which we are falling short, I am quite happy to go through them in detail in the run-up to stage 3.

Amendments 188 and 200, also in the name of Maggie Chapman, would introduce a winter eviction enforcement ban, except in limited circumstances, which is similar to the temporary emergency measures under the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Act 2022. The time-limited nature of the 2022 act was a key factor in achieving the lawful balance between the protection of tenants and the rights of landlords. However, Maggie Chapman’s amendments would be permanent and would apply every year. That is in addition to the enhanced eviction protections that are already in the bill.

I, too, want to ensure that we protect tenants and prevent, as far as possible, the negative impacts of eviction, but we must do so in a proportionate manner. In developing the bill, we explored greater restrictions on evictions over winter and consulted on that as part of our new deal for tenants. That highlighted support for additional protections, but reflected that the Scottish climate can be challenging at any time of year and that other times also present financial and emotional wellbeing pressures for people, such as periods of religious significance and exam periods.

I am also concerned about the creation of an eviction season after the end of the winter period and the negative impact of the additional pressure that that could put on housing and homelessness services, along with the issue of tenants finding alternative accommodation.

The measures in the bill will ensure that a more person-centred approach is taken, as the tribunal or court will need to consider whether the enforcement of an eviction should be delayed at any time of year, although seasonal impact is set out as a specific factor that should be considered.

I understand that the intention behind Emma Roddick’s amendment 250 is to increase the supply of affordable housing, which we are all committed to doing. However, the amendment does not appropriately take account of landlords’ rights. It would be overly restrictive to prevent landlords from selling a property on the open market, even if they had good reason for doing so. Amendment 250 could have unintended negative consequences should landlords decide to exit the market due to the increased risk of being unable to dispose of their property on the open market, so I cannot support it.

However, I reassure Emma Roddick that, in addition to being able to sell empty homes, private landlords can already approach social landlords with a view to selling their property with tenants in situ. Our affordable housing supply programme supports such purchases when they meet a clear strategic purpose and the tenants are at risk of homelessness. A recent example was the purchase in March this year of 20 homes, most of which were tenanted, in a pressured area of Perth and Kinross. We will continue to promote that existing flexibility through our close working relationships with councils, and we are in the process of strengthening our guidance to encourage that still further.

I ask Emma Roddick not to move amendment 250, but I will keep her informed of, and would welcome her thoughts on, the strengthening of the guidance that we will undertake.

Amendment 251, in the name of Maggie Chapman, sets out a proposal that responds to concerns about the costs of moving when a tenancy ends through no fault of the tenant and the misuse of repossession grounds. I am sympathetic to the issues that have been raised, but further detailed consideration of the need for, and the impact of, the amendment is required. That would best be done through the review of repossession grounds that we are committed to.

Amendments 362 to 368 and 395, in Paul McLennan’s name, will ensure that tenants who pay no rent or a low rent are appropriately compensated under the new unlawful eviction damages process. The current unlawful evictions legislation applies to all residential occupiers. That means that the provisions apply to all forms of tenancy and to forms of tenure other than a lease, such as a service occupancy or licence. It is therefore possible that a person who occupies a property will not necessarily pay rent or will pay a low rent. Changes in the bill that base damages on a calculation that involves multiplying the monthly rent could disadvantage people in those circumstances, which is not our intent.

Our amendments address that issue by prescribing that the figure of £840 should be used for the calculation in circumstances in which no rent or a low rent is paid. That figure is based on the average rent for a two-bed privately rented property, which is the most common size in the private rented sector. The amendments also provide powers for ministers to amend that amount through regulations.

Amendments 369 and 404, in Paul McLennan’s name, seek to change the compensation that can be awarded when a wrongful termination occurs to an amount between three and 36 times the monthly rent. That mirrors the way in which damages for an unlawful eviction are calculated. By prescribing £840 as the figure that should be used for the calculation for tenants who pay a low rent, amendment 369 will ensure that such tenants will be appropriately compensated. Powers are also provided for the Scottish ministers to amend the amount through regulations.

Amendment 268, in the name of Mark Griffin, would introduce a requirement for the Scottish ministers to carry out a review of eviction grounds under the 2016 act within 12 months of the bill receiving royal assent. As I have said, I remain committed to such a review being carried out for the private rented sector, and I understand Mr Griffin’s desire for it to be carried out in a timely manner.

However, if a detailed and robust review of repossession grounds is to be delivered, that work must be supported by stakeholder engagement. The imposition of a 12-month timeframe risks limiting the scope of the review, and I am sure that Mark Griffin would agree that none of us would want that to happen.

As I said when I wrote to the committee following its meeting on 6 May, I am committed to engaging with committee members on a range of issues. As part of that process, I will write to committee members with more information regarding our plans following the conclusion of stage 2. I therefore ask Mark Griffin not to move amendment 268.

Amendment 269, also in the name of Mark Griffin, introduces a similar requirement for a review of all the other grounds for eviction within the same timescale. There is no existing commitment to review the grounds for eviction more broadly and no evidence of a need for a review of that for the social rented sector or, indeed, evidence of calls from stakeholders to do so. Also, as no new tenancies can be created in relation to older protected or assured tenancies, that broader review would have little benefit. I therefore ask Mark Griffin not to move the amendment.

Amendment 141, in the name of Emma Roddick, seeks to address an important issue, the misuse of repossession grounds, which was also highlighted by the committee’s stage 1 report. No landlord should wilfully mislead a tenant or the tribunal into ending a tenancy. There are existing penalties for doing so through the Scottish Tribunals (Offences in Relation to Proceedings) Regulations 2016, which could result in imprisonment for up to two years, a fine or both. I recognise the need for further action in that area; however, I am not convinced that amendment 141 will deliver the outcome that is being sought. It is through the wider review of repossession grounds that the issue is best considered.

I reassure members that we are taking immediate action to increase penalties for wrongful termination through amendments 369 and 404. They would see compensation for a wrongful termination increasing from the current maximum of six months’ rent to 36 months’ rent. I therefore ask Emma Roddick not to move the amendment.

The aspects of data collection that we are looking at in relation to the bill are to ensure that we can implement rent controls. I appreciate that there are other pieces of data that members might wish to see collected for overall information purposes relating to the private rented sector. In one of the many round-table meetings that we will have over the summer, we will have to look at why we would be collecting the data, its purpose and what it would be used for. Those are the questions that we will need to get into if we are looking at evictions and the question of whether a property has been sold. We will need to consider how often that ground is used and how we can monitor the sale of properties.

Those details will have to be teased out. I do not know whether that can be done through data collection provisions in the bill, because those would specifically relate to rent control implementation. It is a challenge that we will have to come back to.

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.