Seòmar agus comataidhean

A number of things are emerging. I remember discussing this issue as a member of the committee. In relation to applications, it was estimated that we were talking about 32,000 properties. At the moment, we are talking about a figure of about 30,500, although it is expected that that will go up to about 35,000. The figures are ahead of where we thought that they would be, but we must remember that the initial figures were produced during the Covid period, when there would have been businesses that were struggling to continue.

There has been a slight contrast between the situation in Highland, for example, where the numbers have been very high, and those in Glasgow and Edinburgh, where they have been slightly lower than expected. However, the City of Edinburgh Council has the short-term let control area, and Glasgow City Council is talking about managing the provision of short-term lets. That relates to short-term let control areas as opposed to licensing.

The tourism sector has been recovering reasonably well, although it continues to face the cost of living crisis and so on.

Broadly speaking, we are slightly ahead of where we thought that we would be. The number of short-term lets has fallen slightly, by around 1 per cent or so. There has not been a substantial drop. With regard to the wider impact, we will need to see what happens in the coming months, over Hogmanay, next summer and so on.

Anita, do you have anything to add?

I come from a local authority background and I know that there are obviously different licensing regimes operating. It is very much the case that, if a complaint is received, it will be investigated and the approach will be to ask whether there is something that can be discussed, before it gets to the enforcement stage. There is always that first stage, because enforcement will always be the last resort. We have seen, in any previous licensing regimes, that it is always about having a discussion to try to alleviate the problem and, if not, enforcement is the last resort. As Anita Stewart said, it is about making sure that, if something is reported, we speak to local authorities and police authorities about the best way to deal with it. Local approaches will vary, but it is about following the existing regimes and licensing schemes. Talk to people, try to alleviate the problem or take it away and, if not, enforcement is the last resort. We cannot have people operating illegally, under either this or any other licensing scheme. It is very much about following the procedures that are there for existing licensing schemes.

We have been aware of some such applications being made. It comes back to the point about where things sit legally if people apply for licences when there is not anything there. The issue has been raised with us, and I will bring in Anita Stewart and Margaret Main to talk about the legal aspects.

I am trying to understand the question. I will bring Anita in.

Again, I will bring in Anita Stewart on the specifics. Enforcement was raised early in our discussions. It very much depends on what the actual issue is that requires enforcement. The subject was discussed with Police Scotland and I know that Anita Stewart has talked with local authorities about that and about what we need to do. Enforcement has not been widely abused or used at this particular time.

Issues very much depend on whether it is Edinburgh or the Highlands, for example. Again, the review will look at whether enforcement is a significant issue. I will bring in Anita Stewart, but I am aware that there have not been issues in any significant numbers. It will be very much down to where the local authority is, what the issue is and what we need to do to make sure that that is okay.

As you will probably know, there have been high numbers of applications in some areas, such as the Highlands, and there has been some anecdotal evidence about applications coming in very late in the process. We have been in discussions with individual local authorities on the general numbers, and we will also discuss with them where they are with complex cases. There are always discussions with SOLAR and individual local authorities when the level of applications is higher than we expected. There will be a degree of complexity with some cases, and such issues are discussed in our regular discussions with local authorities.

The key message to get across is that existing holders are still allowed to operate while a new application is considered, and it is in their interests to ensure that the correct information and everything else comes through as quickly as possible. If the person was an existing operator before the application was made, they can, of course, continue to operate during that time.

We have had discussions with local authorities that have had a much higher number of applications than was expected, which is obviously a good sign for the local authority.

I do not know whether Anita Stewart wants to add anything.

The vast majority of cases should be dealt with within that period. For complex cases that require various pieces of information, you would expect the local authority to take that into account in its timescales. The local authority should make an assessment at the start of the process, when an application is received. As Anita Stewart said, we have discussions with individual local authorities on those issues.

I have a few other statistics to mention. By the end of June, according to public registers and other information, 30,299 licensing applications had been made. The current figure is 34,285. There are local authorities that are still processing the data, so we expect that figure to be higher. The level of refusals—cases in which licences have not been granted—has been very low.

Broadly speaking, the number of applications that have been made is slightly ahead of what the estimates suggested prior to the inception of the licensing scheme.

On the general question of personalisation, I met the Dogs Trust before I was a minister and, knowing that a housing bill would be coming up, the trust raised that issue. It said that it can be helpful for an elderly person, or for someone who cannot get out of their home because of illness, to have a dog as a companion. That was raised two and a bit years ago, before I was a minister, and I think that it is really important.

I have visited the Scottish Association of Landlords to talk about the matter. Procedure is the key thing and must be in place. Is the pet a wee Chihuahua or a great Dane? I might be exaggerating, but the dog has to be appropriate to the size of the property. To me, the onus should be on the tenant to look at that, but we are trying to be as flexible as possible. We will see what that looks like in more detail when the regulations come in.

Regarding landlords, it is all about making sure that they are aware of the procedure and that they have the ability, within reason, to say, for example, that you cannot have a great Dane in a one-bedroom flat. It is about recognising the importance of people having pets as companions and striking the balance. That is a key thing.

Thank you, convener and members of the committee, and good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to set out the vision for the Housing (Scotland) Bill and, in particular, how the measures can help us to build on our existing protections to deliver a private rented sector that works for tenants and landlords, and plays a part in eradicating child poverty.

I understand that the committee intends to provide its stage 1 report in the coming weeks, and I am grateful for your time today. In my evidence to the Social Justice and Social Security Committee on 27 June and 5 September, I highlighted key measures in parts 5 and 6 of the bill on homelessness prevention duties, domestic abuse and fuel poverty. In this meeting, I will focus on the actions that we are taking on other measures in parts 1 to 4 of the bill, such as rent control; increased eviction protection; rights for tenants to request a pet and not be unreasonably refused; and rights for private tenants to make changes to a rented home.

The legislation as introduced builds on the strong housing rights that already exist for people in Scotland, with its renewed focus on supporting tenancies to be sustained, which in turn will lead to less pressure on housing supply. The package of reforms as set out in the bill are, therefore, focused on helping to ensure that people have a safe, secure and affordable place to live. The measures in the bill introduce changes that are positive for both tenants and responsible landlords—for example, by reforming how civil damages for unlawful eviction are calculated; enabling unclaimed tenancy deposit funds to be used for the benefit of private rented sector tenants; and providing a mechanism for joint tenants to end a tenancy in cases when there is no mutual agreement. Due to time constraints, I will not talk about those and the other issues in the bill in detail, however, I am happy to answer any questions that the committee has.

I will turn first to rent control. As I set out in my letter to the committee, I remain committed to delivering our vision for a fairer, well-managed private rented sector that works in the interests of tenants and landlords, and supports on-going investment in rented housing. The bill as introduced sets out the framework for how rent control will be delivered, and I have continued to listen to stakeholders’ views on the benefits of providing more clarity on how rent control would apply. In particular, we have considered the need to set out how rent increases will be capped in areas in which rent controls will apply. To support that, I will lodge amendments at stage 2 that set out how the rent cap will apply in rent control areas. That will provide clarity for all, including tenants, landlords and investors. It will build on the provisions that are already set out in the bill to deliver rent controls, which will involve the designation of rent control areas on a geographically specific basis, supported by a local assessment process, which will be carried out by local authorities. That is to ensure that measures can be tailored to the prevailing rent conditions in a localised area and respond to changing circumstances.

Rent control areas will be designated through affirmative regulations with a requirement for consultation ahead of the regulations being laid. The bill already sets out that a rent control area can be designated only when it is necessary and proportionate for the purpose of protecting the social and economic interests of tenants in that area, and when it is a necessary and proportionate control of a landlord’s use of their property in that area. Furthermore, a rent control area can be designated for only a fixed time period of five years. Redesignation beyond the set period would require to be on the basis that further assessment shows that that would be required. The bill also allows ministers to provide for circumstances in which the rent cap does not apply or in which rent may increase by more than the rent cap.

Secondly, the bill places duties on the tribunal and courts to consider whether there should be a delay to the enforcement of an eviction. That action responds to concerns about the potential negative impact of the timing of an enforcement of an eviction on tenants and the fact that there are certain circumstances and times of year during which being evicted can be particularly problematic. The bill sets out specific factors that the tribunal and courts may take into account when deciding whether it is reasonable to delay an enforcement, such as seasonal pressures, periods of religious significance, exam periods, or where more time is required to access suitable alternative accommodation. The measures recognise that there are certain types of eviction where it would rarely be reasonable for the enforcement to be delayed. Therefore, the bill includes exemptions from the duty for certain repossession grounds such as antisocial conduct, criminal convictions, domestic abuse and vacant and abandoned properties.

Finally, on personalisation and keeping a pet, the bill also introduces a statutory framework for private residential tenants to make certain changes to their home and to keep a pet. There will be a right for tenants, including social tenants, to ask to keep a pet and not be unreasonably refused.

With regard to personalising a rented home, there will be different categories of change. Category 1 changes will not require a tenant to request permission for a change; category 2 changes must be requested, but cannot be unreasonably refused by a landlord. Details of the types of changes under each category will be set out in secondary legislation and will be subject to further consultation.

In relation to personalisation and pets, the bill sets clear timescales for requests to make changes, and regulates how disputes will be managed; for private rented sector cases, that will be done through the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland.

Overall, the measures in the bill are part of our vision for the rented sector in Scotland—we aim to improve affordability and strengthen tenants’ rights, while helping to sustain tenancies for the benefit of tenants and landlords.

I continue to listen to the information that stakeholders share and I will bring forward the amendments at stage 2 that I referred to, once we have had the opportunity to consider in further detail how the options will take account of the interests of tenants and landlords, while also encouraging investment.

My officials and I look forward to answering any questions that members might have on these parts of the bill.