Seòmar agus comataidhean

As I said in my previous comments, it would be helpful to receive a response from the minister in charge.

The amendments in the name of my colleague Daniel Johnson are probing amendments that seek to highlight the issue of tenants and owner-occupiers in tenements potentially missing out on the opportunity of the roll-out of superfast broadband across the country and the economic benefits that that will bring. There is a grey area when it comes to maintenance, improvements and upgrades and the definition of a utility, and there is real concern that many tenement owners and tenants, who would really benefit from broadband infrastructure being upgraded, might miss out. Has the Government reflected on whether there is a potential grey area in that respect that needs to be looked at?

I apologise, Ms Chapman. I meant to cover that point. Absolutely. These are probing amendments for the purpose of having a debate about ensuring that we are not at risk of excluding tenemented buildings and common areas from the superfast broadband roll-out. Daniel Johnson has no intention of moving the amendment. It is simply to get that point on the record and to obtain recognition from the Government that we need to consider that issue.

Your concerns are valid. If the amendment was to come back at stage 3, I am sure that Mr Johnson would address that point; however, he probably has no intention of bringing it back at stage 3. The purpose of the amendment is purely to get the debate on the record and to start that dialogue between the Government and Openreach. I appreciate the points that you have raised.

Finally, I will cover my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments. She has helpfully provided more detailed notes. In Scotland’s 2022 census, around 24.1 per cent of the population reported having a disability. That percentage reflects a significant increase on previous years and highlights the growing need for inclusive policies and support to ensure that disabled people can participate in society and lead an ordinary life. That figure is even higher in Ms Duncan-Glancy’s region of Glasgow. In the 2022 census, 26 per cent of Glasgow residents reported having a disability, meaning that Glasgow has the highest proportion of disabled people among the major Scottish cities.

Furthermore, Scotland, like many developed countries, has an ageing population. The number of over-75s is projected to increase by 70 per cent by 2045, from about 460,000 in 2020 to more than 780,000. All that highlights the need to introduce policies that are fit for the future, including ensuring that housing is fit for the future.

However, the reality is that a large proportion of Scotland’s existing housing stock does not work for people with reduced mobility or with care needs. In 2021, more than 100,000 people in Scotland were on waiting lists for accessible social housing. It is difficult to obtain specific figures detailing the number of individuals waiting for accessible social housing in Glasgow, but figures from the four housing associations in the city that responded to a recent freedom of information request show that 1,395 people are on waiting lists for ground-floor properties. More than 60 housing associations and housing co-operatives operate across Glasgow, so the figure will undoubtedly be far higher. Furthermore, the figure applies to only one type of adaptation.

Scotland faces significant challenges in meeting the demand for the adaptations that are essential to allow disabled people to remain in their own homes. That is key to maintaining independence, which has a knock-on effect on health and wellbeing. Projected changes in Scotland’s demographics mean that it is more important than ever to ensure that people have accessible and adaptable homes available to them, which is why Ms Duncan-Glancy lodged this suite of amendments.

Amendment 470 deals with the accessible homes standard. In its “Housing to 2040” document, the Scottish Government committed to introducing the Scottish accessible homes standard for all new homes. The standard was to be implemented through changes to building standards in guidance from 2025-26. However, the Government has delayed its introduction. In a ministerial statement, delivered in late 2024, the minister announced that legislation to implement the standard would be rescheduled.

Instead of introducing that legislation in 2025, the Government plans to launch a public consultation, which is particularly concerning given the increase in demand for accessible housing. The Government has indicated that the forthcoming consultation will inform the development of the standard, with a phased introduction anticipated between 2025 and 2030. People across the country, particularly disabled people, are fed up of continually being asked to participate in consultations that do not necessarily result in the action that they want to see. Disabled people and their representative organisations were actively consulted during the development of the housing to 2040 strategy and now want to see change. More important, they are absolutely fed up of being stuck in inaccessible housing.

Amendment 470 would compel ministers to create an accessible homes standard that all house builders must adhere to when designing and building homes across all tenures and would require that standard to be introduced no later than two years from when the bill comes into force. The purpose of the amendment is to guarantee progress on previous commitments, because the Government has been slow to act, and it would improve the accessibility and adaptability of new-build homes by ensuring that they are suitable for people of all ages and abilities.

Amendment 471 deals with the review of the Scottish accessible homes standard. Because of Scotland’s population will undergo further demographic shifts in the coming years, and because of the pace of change in the technology that supports people to live in their own homes, it is important that the standard is updated. This amendment follows on from amendment 470 and would ensure that the standard is reviewed, giving scope for it to be updated as building techniques and demand change. Amendment 471 would also ensure that disabled people and interested groups would be consulted during the review process and that any updated standard can be scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament.

The “Housing for Varying Needs: a design guide” publication was originally published in 1998 but is yet to be formally updated more than 25 years after its introduction. Although a review of part 1 of the guide, which focuses on the design of self-contained houses and flats, was initiated in 2023, the Government has yet to publish the outcome of that consultation or to formally update the design guide. Scotland’s demographic has undergone significant change since 1998 and the existing design guide predates those changes. It is also not fully aligned with current expectations about accessibility or with technological advances, is inconsistent across tenures and is poorly aligned with modern building standards.

Amendment 472 would mandate ministers to publish, within two years of the bill’s passage, guidance on the design of housing that is accessible for people with a range of needs. The purpose of the amendment is to bring current guidance up to date and ensure that it reflects the ever-changing needs of Scotland’s diverse population. It will clarify what developers should consider when building homes.

Amendment 473 follows on from amendment 472 and would ensure that any guidance that is produced is reviewed as the demographic continues to shift and developments are made in building techniques and resource availability. Its purpose is to ensure that the current situation—the existing guidance is now more than 25 years out of date—is avoided.

Amendment 551 would require the Scottish ministers to introduce a scheme to provide housing adaptations that improve accessibility, as recommended by the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence. The scheme would be tenure neutral and integrate adaptations into planned repair, maintenance and update programmes. It would also include a mechanism for evaluating the adaptations process, to inform future strategy and resource allocation. The purpose of the amendment is to make it easier for people to access and navigate the adaptations process, and to allow people to remain in their own homes.

That covers all the amendments in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy. Ms Duncan-Glancy is appreciative of discussions with the cabinet secretary and the assurances from the Government to work on those issues in advance of stage 3, and does not plan to move her amendments in the group. However, she wanted to put them on record together with the issues that disabled people face in accessing homes that meet their needs.

I share your concerns about the impact on SME developers in particular, and that we are potentially pricing them out of the appeals system. I might feel differently if developers were submitting appeals for every application that was refused and if those applications were all being rejected on appeal, but the figures show that more than 50 per cent are approved on appeal. I am worried that the fees could constrain the pipeline of housing delivery at a critical time. It would be right to ask the minister about those concerns.

That is right. I hope that colleagues will bear with me as I cover my amendments and those of two of my colleagues.

Amendment 221 replicates Awaab’s law for RSLs in Scotland and would give ministers the power to create regulations that entitle tenants to have repairs carried out to remedy hazards. Amendment 222 replicates Awaab’s law for private landlords.

I am aware that the Government and I have lodged similar amendments in that area. I am also aware that the legislative landscape in Scotland differs from that in the rest of the UK in relation to the obligations that are placed on social landlords to deal with potentially unsafe homes. My concern is that the repairs that are currently required by policy in Scotland should have the force of primary legislation and that, through regulations, ministers should make clear what an acceptable timescale for repairs is.

I am happy to work with the Government to ensure that stringent and enforceable timescales are set out in legislation. That is also the case for my amendment 222, which seeks to make sure that the obligations on the public sector to ensure that hazards in homes are repaired quickly are placed on landlords in the private sector. That forms part of our commitment to balancing the interests of tenants, who deserve to live in warm, safe and affordable homes, and of their landlords, who should be able to guarantee safe homes that do not put tenants and their children in danger of illness in exchange for a fair rent.

My priority in lodging amendment 222 is to ensure that landlords and housing associations define hazards that are to be fixed in the broadest sense possible, and that those hazards are fixed as quickly as possible. Awaab Ishak’s tragic death should never have happened. Although I appreciate that organisations such as the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations have reassured me that the more stringent policy regime in Scotland makes such a case more unlikely, I am brought cases as an MSP that have too many similarities to Awaab’s for me to be entirely comfortable with the status quo. We have discussed the issue many times. Many MSPs have the same constituency casework relating to damp and mould, and the issue is a huge concern for us.

Given what the cabinet secretary has said, I am satisfied that the Government and I—and, in fact, all members of the committee—are in the same place. I am therefore happy not to move my amendments today on the understanding that there will be further discussions between stages 2 and 3.

However, as the cabinet secretary pointed out, there is a problem between policy intention and delivery. We are still getting cases of horrific damp and mould in properties, which are affecting tenants and their children, and, in response to complaints, they are still often being told that it is their own fault. That is entirely unacceptable, and I absolutely hope that the Government will make good on its commitment to address the issue. On that note, I do not plan to move amendments 221 and 222.

I will comment briefly on amendments 249 and 490 in the name of my colleague Daniel Johnson. Amendment 249 would streamline the process for withholding rent in the event of a failure to remedy serious repairs, including window defects, central heating defects, water ingress and leaks. It provides that, if the First-tier Tribunal has determined that the landlord has failed to comply with the duty to meet the repairing standard, the tenant may withhold rent until remedial works are completed.

That would apply solely to properties to which the repairing standard applies and, therefore, not to Scottish secure tenancies. The amendment also provides that, where the tenant has withheld rent under this section, that is not considered as rent arrears for the purposes of the eviction grounds in schedule 3 of the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016.

I take on board what the cabinet secretary has said. Daniel Johnson has lodged amendments 249 and 490 as probing amendments to get the debate on the record and to get the cabinet secretary’s assurance on that point.

Amendment 490 states:

“An owner or occupier of a property in a tenement building must take steps (including, where necessary, notifying other owners and occupiers) to ensure that utility companies have access to any common part of the tenement building for the purposes of maintenance, repair or installation work.”

The key point here is the installation work. Daniel Johnson wishes to probe the Government and push it to consider the definition of “utilities” and whether it covers telecommunications, as I mentioned in my intervention on the cabinet secretary earlier. We have been approached by BT Openreach, which has a real concern that owner-occupiers and tenants who live in tenemented buildings are at real risk of missing out on the superfast broadband roll-out due to the restriction on access to carry out installations in common areas of tenement buildings.

I am reassured by the Government’s response that it will look at the issue more closely. I recommend that the Government starts a discussion with Openreach to see whether there is a way to reassure the organisation that there will not be a barrier to the roll-out of superfast broadband, particularly to tenemented buildings and buildings that share common areas.

Amendment 565, in my name, exempts mid-market rent properties from the rental increase frequency proposals. I appreciate that the Government has a consultation on exemptions. My amendment proposes an exemption that is more administrative than policy related. Its purpose is to smooth out the administration procedures for registered social landlords and their subsidiaries.

In the bill as introduced, a rent increase notice would be tied to a 12-month cycle that begins on the date that tenants start a lease. For some medium-sized to larger-sized RSLs, that would mean having to issue hundreds of updates throughout the year that depend on the lease start date of sitting tenants.

I hope that the Government can give me assurances from the exemption consultation that this is an administrative issue that can be smoothed over so that there is not such a burden on the delivery of mid-market rent properties. I hope that the landlords who are described in amendment 565 will be able to issue a single rent notice to all their tenants on one particular day of the year that is decided on by those landlords and their tenants—the date is normally 1 April. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to my proposal and how it might tackle the issue in the exemption consultation.

Amendment 422 would provide that landlords and tenants agree an inventory on the day that the tenancy starts. Providing an agreed inventory at the beginning of the tenancy would be beneficial for landlords and tenants alike. Not only would it ensure that the property was returned to its owner in its original condition, as it was prior to being rented out; it would also reduce the risk of deposit disputes arising at the end of the tenancy.

Tenants are more likely to have their deposit returned in full if what is expected of them is made clear at the start of the lease. If there is disagreement over the return of the deposit, an inventory can be used as evidence in a dispute, to prove the condition of the property prior to tenants moving in.

Amendment 422 would ensure that information and communication between a landlord and a tenant is as full and clear as possible, as that can contribute to a good relationship between the two and, in the worst-case scenario, can ensure that disputes are resolved using agreed evidence that can be referred back to.

Amendment 247, in Daniel Johnson’s name, would place a duty on landlords to provide information to tenants on the previous 36 months of rental payments before the tenancy commences, and amendment 248 would replicate that for the Scottish secure tenancy. The amendments complement amendments in a previous group, on where rents substantially fall behind the market rate as a result of not being increased over time, by giving incoming tenants assurance about what has happened in previous years, so that they can be persuaded that the increase back to market level is not coming off the back of previous rent increases. However, as the consultation on exemptions intends to cover those areas, Daniel Johnson does not plan to move this complementary suite of amendments 247 and 248.

Amendment 501 and consequential amendment 500 would exempt registered social landlords and their subsidiaries from the restriction on rent frequency increases during the first 12 months of a tenancy, regardless of when the tenancy began. The amendments are a practical move, which would allow for easier administration of housing association tenancies. If housing associations were required to set an individual rent rather than setting all mid-market rents once a year, different tenants could potentially be charged different rents, despite living in the exact same property in the exact same area, because prevailing costs and inflation rates would vary, depending on the time that the decision was made.

My amendments speak to the fact that registered social landlords and their subsidiaries are already subject to regulation and monitoring with regard to rental costs. The bill’s provisions would cause unnecessary administrative burdens. Keeping the current annual rent-setting process is preferable for such properties, as that allows for the consultation of tenants in the process, effective communication plans and considered board and management approval for new rent levels. Changing that would, in effect, limit housing associations’ ability to carry out those important practices, which benefit and protect MMR tenants in ways that typical private rented sector tenants are not afforded.

An April notice would align with other relevant economic adjustments, in line with the tax year. In essence, amendments 501 and 500 would stop multiple rent adjustments having to be carried out over the course of the year, depending on when a tenancy started, and it would allow RSLs to have a single rental increase for the year for all their tenants.

My real hand.

For

Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

Against

Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

I keep sticking up a digital hand and not remembering to lower it.