Seòmar agus comataidhean

I understand what the cabinet secretary is saying, but surely a disabled person should not have to go through a tribunal. They should not be put through that additional hurdle in order to have the animal that allows them to function in society living with them. It is another burden and adds more bureaucracy, which we would not ask of somebody who is not disabled, so why are we asking it of somebody who is disabled?

I appreciate the potential issue that the cabinet secretary has highlighted, but, surely, the flipside of that is also true: if a landlord does not respond and, therefore, a tenant has assumed refusal, they would have absolutely no way of seeking to appeal or challenge the decision. That is how it is currently presented, although that might not be the intention. A landlord may be happy for a renter to have a pet but there may be reasons why they have not responded to their request. The tenant may think, “They haven’t met the deadline, so I have no options left.”

Will the member take an intervention?

Amendment 262, in my name, continues on from my amendments on assistance animals in the previous group. It takes the Equality Act 2010 provisions on changes to rental properties for disabled people as the starting point but makes more explicit the fact that changes to make the property accessible should not require explicit approval. The amendment is meant to clarify disabled people’s rights in relation to changes to a property and to stop disabled people having to rely on the provision of section 190 of the Equality Act 2010. Those include changes to make a property wheelchair accessible, changes to create accessible washing and cooking facilities and facilities that relate to assistance animals, and changes that relate to the installation of guardrails, handrails, visual alarms and bells.

As with my previous amendments, these provisions are supported by the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland, Guide Dogs Scotland and Sight Scotland. I am happy to work with colleagues on the drafting of the amendments ahead of stage 3 to address any concerns that they might have about any of the wording of amendment 262.

Amendment 252, in my name, establishes a right to grow food and plants in outdoor spaces of rented properties. The physical and mental health benefits of gardening and growing your own food are well established, and this amendment would ensure that there should be no undue barriers to renters using outdoor spaces that are part of a property to grow their own food and plants as well as to promote animal and insect life, such as by planting flowers that support pollinators. That kind of action is vital as we are facing a nature emergency, with many of Scotland’s animal, insect and plant species threatened with extinction.

Given that young people in the most deprived areas of Scotland have significantly worse access to play space, the amendment also seeks to make it easier for modest changes to be made to garden and other spaces, so that they can enjoy the benefits of outdoor play.

Turning to the other amendments in the group, I agree that major structural changes should be out of scope, so there is Green support for Edward Mountain’s amendments 176 and 179. However, on his amendment 173, although it would help to smooth the process of tenants gaining approval for changes to a property, requiring all changes to be reversed unless the landlord agrees otherwise might have unintended consequences, including for disabled people who have made accessibility changes. Therefore, I ask Edward Mountain to work with colleagues ahead of stage 3 to address those concerns.

I have a quick question on amendment 378. Can you explain the rationale for having a maximum pre-notice period of three months? I completely get the two-month minimum, but why have a three-month maximum?

Like Meghan Gallacher, I will fall foul of the request to be brief, in this group at least. However, as one of my amendments is 12 pages long, I think that I can get away with it this once—maybe.

A warm, safe home that we can call our own is absolutely essential to our wellbeing. That being the case, forcing somebody out of their home should only be done in the most rare and unavoidable circumstances. At the moment, eviction notice periods work differently depending on how long a person has been in a property, and I struggle to see the justification in that. Being forced from your home against your will is going to have an impact regardless of how long you have been there. That being the case, my amendment 187 provides a four-month notice period for everyone, so that all tenants are treated equally. It also has the virtue of simplifying the system.

The same amendment provides a 12-month protection from eviction in the same way as will shortly be provided to tenants in England under the Renters’ Rights Bill. The amendment would ensure that people have a guarantee of a minimum of one year of stability in their home, and it also ensures that protections in Scotland do not fall behind those of other parts of the UK.

My amendments 188 and 200 provide for a ban on winter evictions, specifically between November and March. Disallowing evictions during the winter period is not at all exceptional or experimental. We had an evictions ban in Scotland very recently, and almost the same measures as I am proposing have been in force in France for more than 70 years. Similar provisions exist in certain states in the United States, where evictions cannot happen when the temperature drops below a certain level. In a country that can be as cold as ours, I do not think that I need to press home the point too strongly that we should not be moving people out of their homes and into temporary accommodation that is often poorly insulated, and, where new arrangements do not work out, onto our freezing streets.

There are, of course, appropriate exemptions, but the ban will apply to most of the common grounds for eviction. I understand that the Scottish Government’s approach prizes flexibility, and that is appropriate when ensuring that evictions do not coincide with exams taken by a member of the household, for example, which can happen at any time of the year. The case is similar for religious holidays, as clearly Christian and Muslim households, for example, will need protection against evictions at different times of the year. However, winter evictions are a different matter. As we all know from sliding down the Royal Mile in the ice and snow, Scotland is reliably cold in the last few months and first few months of each year.

The Scottish Government’s approach is asking for inconsistency. The bill says that tribunals “may consider” delaying an eviction due to a “seasonal factor”, but they might not. They might also differ in the interpretation of a “seasonal factor”. Even if members have concerns about particular aspects of the drafting, I ask those members of the committee who agree with the basic principle to support the amendment when I move it, which I intend to. I will be happy to work with them ahead of stage 3 to iron out any details.

If the cabinet secretary does not intend to support the proposal, I have one simple question. The Scottish Government—including my party and that of the cabinet secretary—brought in an evictions clause through the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Act 2022. If it was the right thing to do then, why is it not the right thing to do now?

Amendment 251 gives effect to a long-standing ask from Generation Rent. It would require the First-tier Tribunal, when allowing an eviction, to order the landlord to make a payment to the tenant equal to two months’ rent, or allow the tenant to withhold the last two months of rent. That is in recognition of the significant costs that tenants incur when being evicted.

Polling by Survation for Generation Rent showed how much money tenants lose. Fifty-two per cent of tenants reported that they took more than four days to pack, move and clean at the end of a tenancy, often requiring time off work, which can be costly for those who do not have leave available. Due to overlapping tenancies, 40 per cent of private renters reported that they had had to pay rent on more than one property at once when moving home. More than a third—40 per cent—of those renters had paid rent on two properties for more than two weeks. That is not to mention the costs of cleaning the property or having it cleaned and hiring vehicles to move possessions. When up-front costs, deposits set at five weeks’ rent and time off work are all considered, it typically costs renters £1,400 just to move home. The measure in the amendment is a modest one to help people deal with those costs, which are often put on them at short notice.

Moving to other amendments in the group, there are many that we in the Greens support. Mark Griffin’s statutory review of eviction grounds is a timely and helpful measure. A root-and-branch review is desperately needed. His amendment to restrict evictions where ECO4 energy improvements have been made addresses issues arising recently in respect of troubling evictions, whereby people agree to the disturbance of installation works, only to be evicted so that the more energy-efficient property can be sold or rented more profitably.

Meghan Gallacher’s amendments to restrict evictions in the case of terminal illness make well overdue compassionate changes. I also welcome the tougher sanctions on landlords who do not play by the eviction rules or seek to manipulate them. Those amendments have been lodged by Katy Clark and I thank her for doing so.

However, there are a number of amendments that I cannot support. Edward Mountain’s amendments appear to water down the bill’s plans for evictions to be delayed. I opened by noting that evictions should happen only in the most rare circumstances and only when absolutely unavoidable. That being the case, and with all due respect to faith groups who rent out properties, needing the property for a religious purpose is not a good enough reason for an eviction not to be delayed. I also see no reason to exempt the Church of Scotland alone from those provisions. I therefore encourage colleagues to vote against Willie Rennie’s amendment 452 and Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 487.

I think that is happening already.

I appreciate that these are not your amendments and that you are speaking on behalf of Edward Mountain. One of my concerns with amendments 172 and 182, on professional cleaning, is the costs. I wonder whether, if we had conversations with Edward Mountain between now and stage 3, he would consider amending the wording slightly to say that the property must be cleaned either professionally or in another way to a similar standard, to ensure that tenants are not liable for extortionate costs. I also wonder whether there would be room for conversation about exempting people with assistance animals from those costs.

I have a quick question. One of the concerns is that the rent that is adjudicated could be higher than the amount that was asked for. That surely cannot be what the Government is intending. Is that what the cabinet secretary intends, or is there room for something else to come through?

I will focus my comments on my amendments in the group; I know that my colleague Ariane Burgess will speak to others.

My amendments are designed to focus on the quality and efficiency of properties. We know that many landlords in the private sector provide high-quality homes, but we also know that many do not, and improvement across the board is definitely needed.

At least 55 per cent of homes in the private sector have wall insulation, compared with 69 per cent in the social sector. That is why almost 70 per cent of social homes have an energy performance certificate rating of C or higher, which is almost 20 per cent higher than in the private sector.

Levels of disrepair to critical elements are the highest in the private sector. In relation to overall quality, in 2023, 40 per cent of private sector dwellings failed the Scottish housing quality standard, compared to only 30 per cent in the social sector.