Seòmar agus comataidhean

I move on to the interpretation of NPF4—specifically, the never-ending debate on 20-minute neighbourhoods and the stifling impact that those can have on potential development in remote and rural areas. Are 20-minute neighbourhoods achievable? Why is development being stifled, and how might that be overcome?

Hazel or Esme, does either of you have any comments on 20-minute neighbourhoods?

I understand and am pleased to hear that that work is moving in the right direction. However, will the cabinet secretary please keep the committee updated on the progress that is being made? When it comes to the housing to 2040 board, we are not always in receipt of information, which can cause a lot of frustration to members who are trying to find out where we are, the progress that is being made and the outcomes and objectives that are coming from the Scottish Government and the board.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Following on from what Willie Rennie said, the housing emergency and the introduction of emergency legislation through the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Act 2022 highlighted a significant gap in the Government’s understanding of the private rented sector. Given that that sector provides for approximately 13.5 per cent of Scotland’s population, its role in the housing system is not only substantial; it is indispensable. Had a comprehensive strategy been implemented earlier, it is possible that Scotland could have avoided a lot of the housing shortages that we are seeing today. Although I understand why Willie Rennie is wary of bringing in another strategy, his amendments 1 and 2 come from the right place. It is an area that we have to look at as part of this housing bill.

I will touch on amendments 135 and 135A. The charter proposed in amendment 135 would offer a clear and accessible framework to support both landlords and tenants. I hope that the amendment itself would serve as a straightforward tool for communicating key information. I do not want to be overprescriptive when it comes to implementing a charter. The reason for the amendment is to make sure that the rights of the private rented sector are being upheld. The important balance between the sector and tenants would be met through the charter.

Amendment 135A would change when the charter would be published, from 12 months to six months after the proposed new section came into force. I do not intend to move amendments 135 and 135A today, but I would be grateful to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say on the introduction of a charter. I believe that something of this nature—whether it is a strategy, a charter or something else—must be explored as part of the bill.

With amendment 173, Edward Mountain seeks to ensure that, at the end of the tenancy, a tenant who makes any category 1 or category 2 changes must return the property to its original state. Edward Mountain seeks to provide clarity and ensure that landlords do not have additional expenses at the end of a tenancy should a tenant wish to make personalised category 1 or category 2 changes to a property.

In relation to category 1 changes, I am referring to adjustments such as putting up posters and pictures. Category 2 changes would include things such as painting walls. That can vary a lot according to personal taste in colour, for example, so amendment 173 is about providing clarity for landlords and giving them reassurance that, should any of those changes be made, the tenant will be expected to return things to their original state.

It is interesting that the bill has little to say about tenants of social rented properties. That contrasts with the provisions that relate to the private sector. It makes you think that social tenants have perhaps been overlooked. There are slight differences between the new provisions for private rented properties and the existing provisions for social rented properties. However, we must ensure that, should tenants be allowed to make changes—I do not think that anyone is necessarily arguing against that—there will be a degree of reasonableness and proportionality in relation to what would be expected and the costs that the landlord would have to incur to change things back once a tenancy ended.

Amendment 174 would make it a duty on the Scottish ministers to specify changes to a let property that may be made by the tenant. That is really important. Again, this relates to category 1 and category 2 changes. I have already referred to the definitions of those, but it must be made clear in guidance that, should changes be allowed, landlords must know exactly what the changes look like and what category they fall under. If that is not the case, there might be a lot of discrepancy between what landlords and tenants think is reasonable. It would not be helpful if there were disagreements about that because it has not been properly legislated for in the bill.

Amendment 175 would specify that structural changes to a property must not be categorised as category 1 changes. Again, I believe that the amendment comes on the back of conversations that Edward Mountain had with people in the private rented sector. The Government should clarify category 1 and category 2 changes. Amendment 175 would provide more clarity by specifying that structural changes would not be categorised as category 1 changes.

Amendment 177 would make it a duty on the Scottish ministers to make provision in relation to when it is reasonable to refuse consent for a category 2 change, which, of course, is a step above a category 1 change. Again, this is about what it is fair, measured and reasonable for tenants to seek to do to a property. It would not be about painting walls a certain colour, but clarity on provisions on refusing consent would be helpful.

Amendment 178 would amend “may” to “must” in relation to the provision for the Scottish ministers to make provision about when it is reasonable for a landlord to refuse consent to the making of a new category 2 change to a let property. That is similar to amendment 177.

Amendment 179 would add that regulations must provide that it is reasonable for a landlord to refuse consent to any structural changes to the property. This is to ensure that we have seamless directions on what is expected and allowed and on what guidance landlords can follow. I do not believe that the bill currently provides that.

There are only two other amendments in the group, so it seems appropriate to allow the member who lodged those to speak first, and I can summarise at the end.

I move amendment 173.

Amendment 130 relates to the payment of tenancy deposits. It seeks to include a framework for those payments in the bill so that tenancy deposit regulations must include a provision to ensure that a tenancy deposit is paid by the tenant directly to the scheme administrator. More than anything, it is a probing amendment. It will be helpful to hear where the cabinet secretary sits on including the provision in the bill.

I move on to the amendments in the name of Edward Mountain. Amendment 184 would add a fund for improving or securing the provision of social housing to the list of possible uses for transferred unclaimed deposits. I have a great deal of sympathy with that, as does Edward Mountain. The amendment is about ensuring that we utilise unclaimed deposits in a positive way—in this case, by investing them in social housing, which is under huge pressure. The amendment seeks to find better and more positive solutions for the use of that money. Through discussions with the cabinet secretary, I understand that there are other areas where the money could also be better utilised, so I look forward to hearing her response to amendment 184. Any positive use of that money would be of great benefit to tenants.

I want to go back to the really interesting and important issue of guarantors. It is perhaps not an issue that we can solve through amendments today, but it could certainly be solved in the future. We have spoken a lot about students and young people who are trying to access further and higher education, and we need to be able to look after students who are from here but also students who are from elsewhere in order to utilise our education system. We need to be mindful that they have needs and requirements, including housing, and we must ensure that we recognise those issues throughout the bill.

I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s response and the other contributions on this group of amendments.

Good morning, minister. You are on record as saying that

“Planning has not created the housing emergency, but it can help us to find solutions to the challenges that we face.”—[Official Report, 12 November 2024; c 12.]

Surely what is being proposed here goes against what you have previously said about trying to secure more planning developments in order to tackle the housing emergency. As Mark Griffin has rightly asked, will the fact that the consultation said one thing but you are going to do another squeeze out SMEs?

If small and medium-sized developments cannot progress, though, that will not help tackle the housing emergency. Is that something that you would charge for?

Thank you, convener. I will move amendment 119 but I confirm that I will withdraw it later.

Edward Mountain’s amendment 163 seeks to ensure that the three-month eviction process is concluded within three months of a tribunal application being submitted by the landlord.

I believe that Edward Mountain’s intention in relation to his amendments in this group—amendments 163 to 167—is to ensure that the tribunal application process is dealt with swiftly. Instead of the current process, we would have a defined three-month eviction process. The process will be concluded within that time, which will not just allow the tenant to move on to another property, wherever that might be, but allow the landlord perhaps to bring in a new tenant.

I conclude my comments there. Edward Mountain’s intention is straightforward.

I move amendment 119.