Seòmar agus comataidhean

A lot of important issues have been raised in relation to this grouping on evictions. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for our conversations on my amendments that deal with terminal illness. I have worked alongside Marie Curie, and other colleagues have been involved in those conversations. The conversations, working relationships and cross-party work that have taken place show a resetting of the approach to the bill. I welcome the opportunity to have further discussions with the cabinet secretary over the summer, which I hope will involve Marie Curie—the organisation that is behind the amendments on terminal illness.

I will touch on the amendments that relate to religious organisations letting out properties, which is a really important issue. I understand that that relates to legislation that was introduced during the pandemic, but there is a legacy issue. How can we find a balance between letting those homes out and ensuring that, when those homes need to be occupied by a minister of a local church, that can happen? I do not believe that we can resolve that issue overnight, but Ross Greer’s suggestion about the cabinet secretary meeting religious groups and organisations to see what can be done to tease out the issues would be a step in the right direction.

It has been made clear at stage 1 and now, at stage 2, that we need to consider how to strengthen the tribunal’s powers in relation to its overall authority to strengthen tenants’ rights. We also need to consider, from the perspective of landlords, whether the tribunal has followed the correct processes and, if it has, how landlords can find a suitable resolution to any issues that are being raised. That is raised in various amendments today, and certainly in relation to evictions, which this grouping deals with.

I am sympathetic to Maggie Chapman’s amendments on winter evictions. My problem is with how we define winter. Maggie Chapman might want to explore that but, given the climate in Scotland, it will be incredibly difficult to work out. We have some summers that look like winters, for example, and we could end up with a year-long process that does not allow any eviction processes to happen.

I understand that that could be the position that Maggie Chapman wants to set out, and she is within her rights to do so. However, there has to be a balance, because there are situations in which landlords need to take back their property. If we put in measures against winter evictions, that could prevent such things from happening in situations where they genuinely need to.

I take on board Maggie Chapman’s comments. As I said, I am sympathetic to the situation that people could be faced with, given the climate in Scotland. However, we have to balance that against what our climate is like generally. There could be a means to expand what such a protection would do, given that we have extreme weather throughout different parts of the year. I know that Maggie Chapman is saying that that is not her intention, but I feel that her amendments could be the starting point for expanding such an approach.

I understand what Mark Griffin is trying to do in his amendment 502. Graham Simpson made an important point about whether the grant issue should be dealt with at UK level instead of in the bill. However, given that Mark Griffin’s proposal is about tenants’ rights and housing in general, I believe that it was right to lodge the amendment, even if he decides not to move it.

I understand that time is ticking on, convener, so I will leave my remarks there. I seek to withdraw amendment 119.

Amendment 119, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 120 not moved.

Section 24—Private residential tenancies: duty to consider delay to eviction

Amendments 122, 123, 491, 124 and 125 not moved.

Amendment 163 moved—[Meghan Gallacher].

I will speak to amendment 417. At a previous stage 2 committee meeting, I made the comment that the legal definition of “relevant landlord” must be consistent across housing legislation. That is backed by various stakeholders, including Scottish Land & Estates, which is looking for better data collection through a stronger landlord register. I understand that we are still debating where stakeholders are positioned in that regard.

Mark Griffin raised the issue of how the register currently sits in relation to, for example, people who are required to register not as a landlord but as an agent. I think that that undermines the register’s purpose. We need to ensure that all private landlords are responsible individuals who meet letting standards and are accountable to tenants and local authorities.

Amendment 417 relates to previous commentary on the issue. Will the cabinet secretary work with Mark Griffin and other interested MSPs on that matter, alongside the other issues that I raised at a previous committee meeting, ahead of stage 3?

I understand the point about underresourcing, but that is due to years and years of underfunding of local government.

We need to get back to the consultation point, if we can. I am concerned that you have consulted on one area, only to ignore the responses that you have received and decide to take different action. How will you restore confidence, particularly in the SME sector, that you will not make another decision in future that will go against the consultations that you have made in that particular area?

There is also an issue around the tribunal that we need to look at in relation to the groups that are impacted. Usually, the congregation needs to go to the tribunal and must weigh up the costs that are associated with that and the time impact on its ability to move a minister in and move the tenant out—that is, of course, if the tribunal agrees with the decision.

I understand exactly what Maggie Chapman is saying. I do not want to pre-empt what my colleague Edward Mountain would say, but I am certain that he would like to bring these or similar amendments back at stage 3 so that he can speak to them himself, as he been unable to attend committee for the reasons that I gave at an earlier committee meeting on the bill. I can certainly take the conversation that we have just had back to him. As the amendments are his, I do not think that it would be right for me to come to any conclusion on that.

Amendment 180 seeks to put a duty on the Scottish ministers to make provision about the consent condition for keeping a pet and what makes that reasonable. Again, that is about seeking more clarity.

Amendment 182 is, as Maggie Chapman and I have just discussed, in relation to carpeted floors and soft furnishings being professionally cleaned by an independent company at the end of a tenancy. Again, that is about responsibility in pet ownership. It is probably what you would do in your own home should furnishings need to be cleaned for any pet-related reasons.

I turn to other amendments in the group, because these are issues that I care about. Maggie Chapman is absolutely right that about my entering a Dogs Trust dog in the Holyrood dog of the year competition. I have done so every year bar one, when I was on maternity leave, and that is because I believe in what the organisation is trying to achieve. It is trying to make it easier for people to own a pet and, of course, ensure that animals do not end up in rescue homes, when they can have forever homes. I think that most committee members would support that.

I have an issue with amendments 24 and 28. Actually, it is not an issue as such; I have a view on the timeframes that are acceptable or reasonable. Will the timeframe be 14 days, 28 days or something else? I do not think that we can necessarily determine that at today’s committee meeting. We might need to have another discussion about it—I know that we will be having a lot of discussions—to work out what would be fair and reasonable. I can come up with scenarios, such as a landlord being on holiday or ill, or there could be other personal circumstances that might mean that they do not have sufficient time to respond within the 14 day period. I understand that there could be workarounds to allow for those circumstances, but I wonder whether 28 days would be more reasonable than 14 days—I have already discussed that with the Dogs Trust—or whether there should be another timeframe. We can all have a good debate about the timeframe as we approach stage 3, because it is important.

On amendment 25, on whether a request would be automatically approved, we need to determine what timeframe would be appropriate before we consider the amendment. However, I understand the reasoning and I am sympathetic to the proposal, given the points that have been raised about people having the right to own a pet, which I think that many members would support in principle. We also need to consider the type of pet, which has been mentioned briefly but not at length. There is a massive difference between a Border terrier and a Siberian husky, for example. I am not trying to say which breed of dog is my favourite, because I have friends who own each of those breeds, but we need to consider that and be mindful of whether a small rental property would be an appropriate place to keep a large dog.

On Maggie Chapman’s amendments on assistance animals, I take the cabinet secretary’s point about the Equality Act 2010, but I would be interested in understanding whether that would cover additional animals such as therapy pets. I am not entirely sure that it does, which is why I am throwing out the issue for discussion. We also need to look at that as we approach stage 3. Assistance dogs could be guide dogs to assist people with their sight or hearing loss, or it could refer to other therapy pets.

I will leave my comments there. I think that I have addressed all Edward Mountain’s amendments in group 26, and, certainly, the amendment that I have an interest in.

My amendment 516 deals with cladding issues. On 1 June 2022, Parliament introduced legislation to ban combustible façade materials from being used on the outside of residential and high-risk buildings of 11m or more in height. However, the Building (Scotland) Regulations 2022 omitted certain key buildings, namely hotels and office buildings. That contrasts with legislation in England, where the ban on combustible materials was extended in December 2022 to include hotels, hostels, boarding houses, care homes and other buildings of that nature.

High-risk buildings under 11m in height sit outside the ban—including schools and hospitals, which means that such buildings can still be constructed or retrofitted with combustible cladding and insulation. We know that there are issues with the standard for testing—BS 8414—which has been widely criticised as being not fit for purpose. However, that is still the test standard that we use in Scotland with regard to buildings that could have combustible façade materials.

Rightly, the Scottish Government acknowledged the limitations of the system testing when it introduced the initial ban. However, given what we have seen in minutes from the building and fire safety ministerial working group, such testing appears to continue to underpin the Scottish Government’s approach on external wall products. We need clarification on the Government’s position on the matter and whether it accepts the serious risk that is associated with the use of combustible façade materials that pass a systems test, because it seems evident that we should not necessarily have confidence in that testing system or continue to use it. We should be working UK-wide to find a solution that we can bring forward in Scotland.

I note that my amendment relates to dwellings; I wanted to extend the margins of the amendment to include other buildings that are at high risk with regard to the use of combustible façade materials but was advised that that was outwith the scope of the bill. However, I believe that everything is interlinked, and I will explain why.

Hotels primarily provide members of the public with a place to sleep. They therefore serve a purpose like that of residential and domestic properties. Office buildings have also been excluded from the ban, despite high occupancy and a growing interest in converting such buildings for residential use.

I accept that. We have had the Minister for Housing at committee on that exact issue. My concern is that we are moving significantly more slowly than our UK counterparts. That needs to be reflected on. In particular, England, as I referenced, has included as part of the ban the buildings that I referenced. We should move towards that at pace.

I understand that there is a consultation, that the responses are being analysed and that we will probably have an update in due course. However, as things stand, any such building being retrofitted, renovated or built can still have that particular building material placed on it. We need to recognise that, particularly if a ban is to be put in place and we have to look at those buildings again.

I believe that there is an issue with schools and hospitals. Although I am not talking about dwellings in terms of housing, all is encompassed in the overall cladding strategy that we need to move forward on and deal with. I do not intend to move amendment 516 today—the cabinet secretary will probably be pleased to hear that—but I have put those issues on the record. The reason for lodging the amendment was to raise the issue of cladding and the urgency of dealing with issues of combustible façade materials.

I will pick up on a couple of the other amendments in the group, convener—I understand that you want to wrap up fairly quickly, but I need to raise concerns about amendments 249, 385, 538 and 539. A number of amendments in the group involve potentially heavy penalties if a landlord fails to maintain a property to what is perceived to be an acceptable standard. I believe that that plays into a wider issue.

Scottish Land & Estates has raised concerns with the minister about a key flaw in the bill, which is that who the relevant landlord is when it comes to the provision of information is not clearly defined. Although the minister’s amendments 303, 304 and 313 sought to address that, they have not resolved the ambiguity around who the person responsible is when a tenant is also a landlord and the head landlord is at arm’s length from the tenancy agreement. It is clear how quickly the complexities can expand. That confusion affects compliance with wider housing regulation, including that on landlord registration and repairing standards.

I understand that SLE has proposed a fix via a clearer definition in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, which would bring consistency across housing regulations, provide clarity in relation to compliance, reduce the likelihood of disputes and delays to repairs, and provide clarity on who is responsible for enforcement.

We need to be careful about the amendments in this group. Although they are well intentioned, it is wrongly assumed that the necessary clarity already exists. Given that failing to meet the repairing standard can, ultimately, lead to a criminal offence, surely it is only right that landlords are given clear guidance on what they must comply with. Will the cabinet secretary and the minister commit to lodging further amendments at stage 3 that would deliver that clarity? I would be more than happy to work with the cabinet secretary on that.

I accept that. We have had the Minister for Housing at committee on that exact issue. My concern is that we are moving significantly more slowly than our UK counterparts. That needs to be reflected on. In particular, England, as I referenced, has included as part of the ban the buildings that I referenced. We should move towards that at pace.

I understand that there is a consultation, that the responses are being analysed and that we will probably have an update in due course. However, as things stand, any such building being retrofitted, renovated or built can still have that particular building material placed on it. We need to recognise that, particularly if a ban is to be put in place and we have to look at those buildings again.

I believe that there is an issue with schools and hospitals. Although I am not talking about dwellings in terms of housing, all is encompassed in the overall cladding strategy that we need to move forward on and deal with. I do not intend to move amendment 516 today—the cabinet secretary will probably be pleased to hear that—but I have put those issues on the record. The reason for lodging the amendment was to raise the issue of cladding and the urgency of dealing with issues of combustible facade materials.

I will pick up on a couple of the other amendments in the group, convener—I understand that you want to wrap up fairly quickly, but I need to raise concerns about amendments 249, 385, 538 and 539. A number of amendments in the group involve potentially heavy penalties if a landlord fails to maintain a property to what is perceived to be an acceptable standard. I believe that that plays into a wider issue.

Scottish Land & Estates has raised concerns with the minister about a key flaw in the bill, which is that who the relevant landlord is when it comes to the provision of information is not clearly defined. Although the minister’s amendments 303, 304 and 313 sought to address that, they have not resolved the ambiguity around who the person responsible is when a tenant is also a landlord and the head landlord is at arm’s length from the tenancy agreement. It is clear how quickly the complexities can expand. That confusion affects compliance with wider housing regulation, including that on landlord registration and repairing standards.

I understand that SLE has proposed a fix via a clearer definition in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, which would bring consistency across housing regulations, provide clarity in relation to compliance, reduce the likelihood of disputes and delays to repairs, and provide clarity on who is responsible for enforcement.

We need to be careful about the amendments in this group. Although they are well intentioned, it is wrongly assumed that the necessary clarity already exists. Given that failing to meet the repairing standard can, ultimately, lead to a criminal offence, surely it is only right that landlords are given clear guidance on what they must comply with. Will the cabinet secretary and the minister commit to lodging further amendments at stage 3 that would deliver that clarity? I would be more than happy to work with the cabinet secretary on that.

I understand what you are saying and what you are trying to do, but I believe that the onus should be on both sides, not just on one side. For a number of reasons, people will be aware that unions exist; therefore, they could be looked into by the tenant themselves. Saying that the tenant can join a union does not give them much scope in terms of which ones they might want to join. The argument that I am probably reaching is that that information could be better sourced elsewhere. However, I understand the exchange and what you are trying to achieve with the amendments. That is the point that I was looking for more clarity on. I will leave my remarks there.