Seòmar agus comataidhean

I know that people will be sad to hear that this is my last amendment to the bill at this stage.

Amendment 515 is an absolutely crucial amendment. We have heard criticisms that the bill does not do enough to increase the supply of homes, which my amendment seeks to address in specific ways. The “Scottish Vacant and Derelict Land Survey 2023” showed that we have over 9,000 hectares of derelict and vacant land in Scotland. Roughly two thirds of vacant and derelict land is used for residential housing, when it is eventually brought into use.

We also have many houses that are not in use. As of 2024, 31,596 homes had been left empty for more than one year. We have a housing crisis, people living in unsuitable accommodation and local authorities suspending social housing allocations as they are needed for temporary accommodation, yet we also have almost 32,000 homes that could be rented or sold for people to live in.

That situation has to change, and my amendment does that. It would allow local authorities to order a property or land that has been left vacant for a specified period to be sold for housing or rented to tenants. That is not a new idea: England’s empty dwelling management orders, which allow privately owned properties to be managed, have been in place for around 20 years. In 2018, the Scottish Land Commission published proposals on that, but the Scottish Government is yet to act on them.

I am very grateful to have Shelter Scotland’s support for my amendment. I am not shying away from the fact that the use of such orders is a complicated area, which is why I have largely left the issue to secondary legislation. I also accept that my amendment might need some tweaks or changes. However, given the statistics that I have outlined and the housing crisis that Mark Griffin and others have mentioned this afternoon, we should be using the bill to send a clear signal that we no longer tolerate houses being left empty for years when people are homeless.

Amendment 503 seeks to further reinforce rent controls. As I said previously, we need to ensure that rogue landlords will not chance raising rents above what is legally allowed. That was the rationale for having much higher fines. An additional deterrent would be to remove the landlord from the landlord register if they have flouted rent controls, which is what amendment 503 would enable. I am happy to discuss changes to make the proposal agreeable to the committee, but if we are serious about rent controls, we need to back that with genuine deterrents for landlords who seek to get around them.

Mark Griffin’s amendments would bring more transparency to the private rented sector by requiring more information on the properties let by a landlord to be included in the register. Information on rents would also need to be included, which would support rent controls, as well as broader information for tenants. That is welcome, as it would make the register more accessible to tenants and prospective tenants.

I have a question on amendment 419, which Mark Griffin could perhaps address when he sums up. That amendment would remove landlords from the register unless they re-registered after one year, rather than the current three years. That would improve accessibility for landlords, which we welcome, but there is a question about the burdensome nature of that provision, particularly for local authorities. It would be useful if Mark Griffin could address that issue.

My amendment 190 addresses two important issues in relation to deposits. The first is the large deposits that so many landlords now require. As rents have skyrocketed, so have deposits. The average rent for a two-bedroom flat in Lothian is £1,358 a month. As landlords can ask for up to two months at once, a maximum deposit would be around £2,700. That presents a major barrier to securing accommodation for very many renters. As the discretionary housing payments budget is hugely oversubscribed, using that fund to help people to pay overly large deposits is clearly not the best use of a limited pot.

The second part of amendment 190 addresses up-front rent payments. It seeks to make it clear that

“any requirement to pay rent prior to the commencement of a tenancy or to secure ... the tenancy”

in the first place

“is a prohibited requirement.”

I welcome most of the other amendments in the group. Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 130 would require deposits to be paid directly to a deposit protection scheme. That would set up a direct line of communication between tenants and the scheme and make it easier for deposits to be returned. It would also avoid the problems of landlords illegally holding deposits themselves.

Graham Simpson’s amendment 73 would make it easier for people with less connection to the UK to provide a guarantor. We agree with that principle. Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment would make it easier for students to provide a guarantor, which we also support.

Paul McLennan’s amendments in the group are broadly welcome, but I seek an assurance that amendment 374 will not make it harder to create new purposes for which unspent deposits may be used. I would appreciate the cabinet secretary addressing that point in her remarks.

I want to ask a very quick question, cabinet secretary, as I would like your assurance on a matter. You said that the points made in my amendment 503 are already covered by the 2004 act. Can you assure me that they are indeed covered, given that rent controls are not mentioned in that act, as they did not exist when it was passed? My amendment specifically mentions deviations from rent control levels.

I thank Graham Simpson for referring to amendment 251. Cabinet secretary, you mentioned the review of repossession grounds. In the letter that you will write to the committee after stage 2, will you include the timeframe for that review, so that we know when we will have that information and what we will be able to do with it when it comes out?

This is another fairly lengthy—but not too lengthy—contribution from me. I know that many members of the committee and, indeed, many members of the Parliament, are pet owners and animal lovers. Emma Roddick entered Sparky, her beautiful English bull terrier, into the Holyrood dog of the year competition earlier this month, and Meghan Gallacher entered Trevor, a Dogs Trust dog.

Pets make a house a home, and this part of the bill seeks to set up a clear framework for tenants to make requests for their pets to live with them as part of their family. There is a lack of pet-friendly rented homes in Scotland. A 2021 survey of landlords, letting agents and tenants on pets and rental properties conducted by YouGov on behalf of Cats Protection and the Dogs Trust found that 68 per cent of private Scottish landlords who do not currently allow pets in any or all of their properties say that nothing would persuade them to do so. That demonstrates the need for a legal framework to actively encourage landlords to see the benefits of pet ownership for responsible tenants.

Additionally, the survey highlighted the number of blanket no-pet policies in Scotland. Some 18 per cent of Scottish landlords do not allow cats because they use a standard contract template provided by the letting agent, and 6 per cent because they use a standard contract template which they download. Tenants are being denied the opportunity to experience the benefits of pet ownership simply because their contract says no to pets. The proposals will end blanket no-pet policies by enabling tenants to request to keep a pet without fear of automatic rejection because of a contractual clause.

Giving responsible tenants a right to request to keep a pet in their home that landlords cannot unreasonably refuse, will decrease the burden on animal rehoming organisations such as Cats Protection. In 2023, Cats Protection took in the equivalent of around three cats each day due to landlords not allowing them in their properties. Our proposals have the potential to help relieve the large waiting lists that rehoming organisations face and allow them to focus their resources on other animals in need.

A number of my amendments would make the pet request process work better and they have all been developed in partnership with Cats Protection, Dogs Trust and Sight Scotland. My amendments 24 and 28 reduce the time a tenant has to wait to get a response to a pet request from 42 to 14 days. Dogs Trust believes that that would allow tenants to better plan for pet ownership, reduce any kennelling or cattery expenses and lessen the significant stress of not knowing whether they will be able to keep their pet in their rented property. From the landlord’s point of view, it would still afford a reasonable timeframe in which to consider the request.

My amendment 26 addresses a loophole in the proposed system. If a landlord does not meet the timescale, they are deemed to have refused the request, which is simply not fair. The tenant has no way of knowing why the landlord does not consent to the pet and therefore has no ability to offer assurances to the landlord or to challenge the decision. Amendment 26 would change that, so that the landlord is deemed to have consented if they do not reply within the timescale. That is not new or an untested formula. It is the same approach that appears in section 30 of the bill, on social housing. There is no good reason at all why social and private tenancies should not be treated exactly the same in that respect. It is very important that all parties are clear on what does and does not constitute a reasonable request and a reasonable refusal, so my amendments 26 and 27 would require ministers to produce appropriate guidance on that.

My amendments 259 to 261 and 263 to 265 cover assistance animals. The amendments exempt assistance animals from the pet request process, granting an automatic right to have an assistance animal in a rented property. I have heard concerns that the subject of the amendments is already covered by the Equality Act 2010, which, of course, prohibits discrimination against disabled people, but there are no specific protections for disabled tenants who need their assistance animals at home. Sight Scotland reports having to work with the landlords of blind and partially sighted people to ensure that their assistance animals can live with them. If the 2010 act were perfectly clear on that point, that would clearly not be happening, but it is.

I would like to provide a quote from a person with sight loss living in Edinburgh who has repeatedly been refused a tenancy because they need their guide dog to live with them and have been told no:

“It was very disheartening when I was told that I could not rent a property because of my Guide Dog. It made me feel very upset and frustrated.

Even when I explained the laws and legislation, I was still told no and that the letting agent had to take the landlord’s side. It made me very wary of looking for a rental property, and I started to discount a lot of properties, as the adverts stated no pets.

This left me with a very limited choice of houses to pick from. The stress of finding a property is bad enough without having to explain my sight loss and why I have a Guide Dog as my mobility aid.”

Disabled people should not be made to jump through the hoops of the Equality Act 2010 to prove that it covers having their assistance animal with them in their home. There should instead be a very clear and simple statement in Scottish housing law confirming that they can, and that is what my amendments seek to do. I am very pleased that Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland, Guide Dogs and Sight Scotland support the amendments.

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.