���˿���

I thank Mr Fraser for giving me the opportunity to come back in. The case that he raises is a concern. Members who have sat through numerous groups of amendments to the bill know that we have had several discussions about the current law, but my speaking notes have never just said that the current law is there and therefore there is not a problem. The current law is there, but it is not working for the residents, which is clearly an issue in this area.

I mentioned that the Minister for Housing had written to all councils, but it is important that we seek further reassurance—both for Mr Fraser and, importantly, for the residents who have raised these issues—hear the feedback on the minister’s letter and see whether further work is being done on the matter. I recognise the concern that Murdo Fraser rightly raises, and the quote from the council shows, if it needed to be shown, that more work needs to be done.

I will not say any more about Murdo Fraser’s amendments that I spoke about earlier, but on amendment 22, I appreciate his point about the time that it might take if the issue moves forward to further consultation, further work and a new legislative vehicle. I cannot deny any of that.

On two issues, specialist work needs to be done. The Mobile Homes Act 1983 covers Gypsy Traveller sites. In particular, where those are socially provided, we will want to consider what is best to ensure that the rights of that community are upheld and strengthened as appropriate. I appreciate that Mr Fraser comes with particular cases from his constituency work, but that other aspect is important to recognise.

Furthermore, it might not be appropriate for all case types under the 1983 act to move to the tribunal. For example, cases that relate to evictions from social housing are dealt with by the courts, so we will need to consider whether the same should apply to evictions under the 1983 act.

As I said, I am very sympathetic to where Murdo Fraser is coming from, but it is a complex area of legislation, particularly because of the equalities issues and the read-across to other housing legislation. Therefore, I am still unable to support amendment 22.

Amendment 386 agreed to.

Section 46, as amended, agreed to.

Section 47 agreed to.

After section 47

Amendment 21 not moved.

Amendment 22 moved—[Murdo Fraser].

I support amendment 458 in the name of Evelyn Tweed, which creates an independent appeals process for decisions by the Scottish Housing Regulator. Although the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 established a statutory right of appeal to the Court of Session for specific decisions of the regulator, it did not establish any wider specific statutory right of appeal against its regulatory decisions. The current non-statutory appeals process that the regulator developed therefore goes as far as the regulator can legally go. Evelyn Tweed’s amendment establishes an effective framework for the review and independent appeal of regulatory decisions, and I welcome that it has received support from the sector.

I understand the intentions behind Mark Griffin’s amendment 271, which would require the Scottish Housing Regulator to collect and publish information. However, the regulator already collects that information for all social landlords in its annual return on the charter. The regulator is required to report annually on performance against the charter and does so as part of its national report on the charter. The regulator also has on its website a facility where landlord performance can be compared and data tables that make all the information publicly accessible.

Asking social landlords to provide information to the regulator monthly and for the regulator to publish that information in addition to what it already does would be highly demanding with regard to time and resource and would impact on both social landlords and the regulator. As that information is already collected and published annually, I ask Mark Griffin not to move the amendment.

I understand Mark Griffin’s intention in amendment 272 to introduce a requirement on the Scottish Housing Regulator to publish

“guidance on the competence and conduct of individuals involved in the provision of services in connection with the management of social housing.”

However, work by the Chartered Institute for Housing in Scotland—the professional body for housing—is already under way, which demonstrates that it should be a matter for the sector itself to determine. The CIH should lead the work, with input from other sector organisations such as the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, the Association for Local Authority Chief Housing Officers, the wider sector and, of course, the Government.

For transparency, I note that, albeit some time ago, I worked for the CIH and was a member of it for many years. I commit the Scottish Government to being an active partner in that work and therefore ask Mr Griffin not to move amendment 272.

Amendments 522 and 564, in the name of Emma Roddick, would provide for a new appeal route if a private landlord withdraws consent for a pet because the tenant has not complied with the reasonable conditions imposed. There exist routes of recourse in the private rented sector through the First-tier Tribunal in relation to a breach of the tenancy agreement, which could be used in those circumstances.

Although I think that the amendments are unnecessary, I appreciate the member’s desire for clarity on the issue, because it is an exceptionally important point. Guidance for tenants and landlords will be important in supporting those new rights, and further support on that type of issue will be addressed through that guidance. I give Emma Roddick reassurance on that point and therefore ask her not to press amendment 522 and not to move amendment 564.

Emma Roddick’s amendment 259 and Maggie Chapman’s amendment 263, and her associated amendments 260, 261, 264 and 265, would allow private and social tenants to keep an assistance animal without the landlord’s consent. While I am sympathetic to the sought outcome, I do not think that the amendments are necessary, because a disabled tenant can already ask a landlord to keep an assistance animal. If the tenant requires any such animal, such a request cannot be unreasonably refused. Under the Equality Act 2010, that is known as making a “reasonable adjustment”. The amendments are likely to confuse matters as they do not take account of other tenants’ needs or the property’s suitability. We can address the issue that Maggie Chapman has raised today around guidance, and it is now easier to seek redress through the tribunal. I recognise the concerns that Maggie Chapman has raised, but I suggest that there is another way to address them.

The tenant can appeal an unreasonable refusal, so I hope that that reassures Maggie Chapman that they would have the ability to appeal. As an animal lover and a pet owner, I am concerned that we would be asking people to have to rehome their pets or to find them alternative accommodation, when those pets are, in effect, members of their family. The issues that are raised with assumed consent would be quite concerning for the tenant and, indeed, the pet.

Amendments 524 to 527 in the name of Emma Roddick would remove the ability of a tenant to seek redress where a landlord has failed to respond to a pet request. I understand that the amendments intend to support the effective operation of the deemed consent model that is proposed under amendment 25. I have already set out my concerns about the risks that that model would create, and I do not think that that is the right way to deliver improved rights in this area. I ask the member not to move her amendments.

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.

I am happy to carry on having these conversations with Maggie Chapman in the run-up to stage 3 if she thinks that there is a flaw in what is being suggested by the Government at stage 2, or a gap in the proposals that would create problems for tenants. I have tried to set out that we believe that it is important that there is a process in place that is based on the rent cap and does not have a subjective process attached to it. However, with that caveat, if there are further discussions that we can have ahead of stage 3, I would be happy to carry on with those. The Government has been clear about the importance of the rent cap in providing clarity to landlords and tenants.

Amendment 139, in the name of Emma Roddick, and amendment 238, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would both require a rent officer to impose a financial penalty on a landlord that would require the landlord to pay a sum to the tenant if the rent officer were to find that a rent increase notice that was referred to them for verification proposes an increase above the level of the rent cap. The amendments would provide for different financial penalties, either three times the amount that was requested by the landlord above the rent cap or an amount of £10,000.

Amendment 140, in the name of Emma Roddick, and amendment 239, in the name of Maggie Chapman, are similar. The amendments relate to cases in which a landlord or tenant refers a rent officer’s determination under section 43M of the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 for review and the rent officer finds that the proposed rent is above the level of the cap. In those circumstances, the rent officer would be obliged to issue an order for the landlord to pay a penalty to the tenant. The amendments would provide for different financial penalties: either three times the amount or an amount of up to £10,000.

The amendments do not include a defence of reasonable excuse for a landlord, which may have included making a genuine error. There would also be no right of appeal to an independent impartial tribunal, nor would there be discretion for the rent officer to not impose a penalty when they consider that a penalty is not appropriate.

In addition, rent service Scotland is a non-judicial body and rent officers are arguably not equipped to make a judgment on the culpability of a landlord or on the appropriate level of penalty. As such, there would likely require to be a further level of consideration, potentially by the First-tier Tribunal, which would create a far more complex and costly process than is set out in the amendments.

Although I have concerns about the details of the amendments, which mean that I cannot support them, I understand the concerns that the members are seeking to address through them. I urge Emma Roddick and Maggie Chapman not to move their amendments. Instead, I offer to work with them, similar to my offer on amendments 137 and 237, which were debated in an earlier group. I would be happy to discuss the issues further, ahead of stage 3, with a view to reaching an agreement on what might be appropriate. I hope that that would address the concerns that they have quite rightly raised in committee today.

Finally, amendment 240, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would require the First-tier Tribunal to impose a financial penalty on a landlord, ordering them to pay a sum to the tenant if the tribunal finds that the initial rent under the tenancy was set too high or that the first rent increase was introduced too early. The penalty would be up to £10,000. Again, there is no defence of reasonable excuse for a landlord who might have made a genuine error, and there is no discretion for the tribunal not to impose a penalty where it considers that the penalty is not appropriate. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment, and I urge Ms Chapman not to move it.

I urge Emma Roddick, Rachael Hamilton and Maggie Chapman not to move their amendments in this group and instead to work with me ahead of stage 3 to consider whether we can find consensus on possible changes to penalties on landlords who do not comply with their duties under this part of the bill.

The consultation for both the social and private rented sectors will be held in the current calendar year. I will come to this later in my comments on the group, but it has been raised in the conversations that colleagues have had with me—and this is demonstrated in the amendments that have been lodged—that the powers exist in many places but they are not being used, for a number of reasons. I am keen to get to the details of why they are not being used. In this case, I believe that a change to the primary legislation is required, with timescales, to ensure that the standards requirements are being implemented. In other cases, a non-legislative approach might be taken, but in this case I am convinced that we need to change the legislation to make the changes happen that we all want to see.

I very much agree with Mr Simpson’s premise that something further needs to be done. That is exactly why the Government is committed to a consultation this calendar year, which will include details of hazards and timescales. We have had that power in the past. What we will come to, in a myriad of points during this grouping in particular, is that, for whatever reason, those powers are not being enforced to adequate standards. That is why the Government will bring forward a list of hazards and timescales as per the work that is being done in England. We are not just saying, “There is a power” and doing nothing about it; we are undertaking a consultation with further details, to ensure that that happens.

Amendments 231A, 443, 444, 448 and 446 all seek to remove Scottish ministers’ discretion as to how to apply Awaab’s law in the social and private rented sectors. That element of discretion is needed to enable us to consult stakeholders and engage with the UK Government to ensure that private tenants in Scotland are at least as protected in relation to repairs as those in England and Wales are. I am happy to work with Graham Simpson to identify any issues that he has with the proposals for Awaab’s law, but we need to take cognisance of the work that has been happening in England as the UK Government moves through the consultation process on the complexity of that work and of our obligations, to make sure that we get this right on behalf of tenants.

Amendments 221 and 222, in the name of Mark Griffin, look at more general repairs in social and private tenancies. Amendment 221 would, via regulations, oblige Scottish ministers to confer a right on a tenant in a social tenancy to have certain prescribed hazards repaired. It would also amend a social landlord’s repairing obligations to provide that they must

“ensure that there are no prescribed hazards”

within the house. Amendment 222 would amend the repairing standard in the 2006 act to oblige a private landlord to ensure that there are no current or prospective prescribed hazards in the house.

Amendments 221 and 222 would oblige landlords to ensure that there are no prescribed hazards in the property, but the landlord might not be in a position to know whether such hazards are present. An obligation to remedy defects and hazards once they are known would be more achievable. The amendments also cut across the existing rights of social and private tenants to have repairs carried out, thereby creating a confusing regulatory landscape for landlords and tenants. As those issues are already provided for in law, I cannot support those amendments. Again, I point Mr Griffin to the work that is being undertaken on Awaab’s law in both the social and private rented sectors.

Amendments 257 and 267, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would provide that rent for private residential tenancies in a rent control area cannot not be increased unless the property

“meets minimum standards specified by the Scottish ministers in regulations.”

Similarly, amendment 442, in the name of Ariane Burgess, would place a duty on ministers to create, through affirmative regulation, a new lettable standard that all residential properties must meet.

Although I agree with Ms Chapman and Ms Burgess on the importance of all rented properties complying with appropriate standards, statutory standards and enforcement measures are already in place for rented properties. The repairing standard already obliges landlords to keep their property to specified standards, with enforcement mechanisms being available should they fail to do so. The tolerable standard applies to all houses in a local authority area. The Scottish housing quality standard applies to properties in the social rented sector. There are existing enabling powers that could be used to enhance those standards where required.