Seòmar agus comataidhean

I hear what Meghan Gallacher is saying. However, it would be up to the renter—the tenant—to find out how to join the union. A new employee is provided with a lot of information on their employment terms, but the mechanism for providing that information is not necessarily laid out in statute anywhere; what is set out is that that information will be provided and that an employee can join a trade union. The same principle would apply here. The amendments do not set out information about how someone would join a union, which one they would choose or how they would go about joining; they are about the renter having the information that, in this case, such unions exist and are available. I am not sure that we need to set out in statute—that is, in the bill—exactly how that communication would happen, given that, as you have suggested, communication mechanisms change all the time. The amendments would just require landlords to make that information available to renters, because there is so much information out there that is not communicated at the moment. The amendments would ensure that the landlord was required to communicate that information, and they could do so in a way that worked for the situation.

This has been a thorough and wide-ranging but productive discussion. I have listened carefully to the cabinet secretary and to MSP colleagues. There is clear cross-party agreement on the need to improve the quality of homes, regardless of what sector they are in. Our homes are the foundation of our health and wellbeing, and, too often, they make renters ill. Poor-quality homes can have direct physical health consequences—we have heard about the effects of homes that have mould and damp—but they can also have negative impacts on mental health, confidence and so much more, as Emma Roddick and others have highlighted.

I cannot see a justification for different approaches to be taken to the private rented sector and the social rented sector. Quality matters, regardless of tenure and sector. There is clearly a need for people such as migrant agricultural workers to have healthy, decent places to live in, too, so I am grateful that that issue has been aired. It is one that I have come across repeatedly in the North East Scotland region.

Despite the cabinet secretary’s assurances, I remain unconvinced that the current systems for ensuring quality are working. If they were working well, we would not see the levels of failure to meet the standards that we see. We need to have better and more unified standards, proper checks on properties, penalties where those are not being met and timescales for substandard properties to be remedied. The amendments from the Greens and others would help us to move towards that.

Like Graham Simpson, I am not trying to be awkward, but because these issues are of such grave importance to renters and their advocacy groups, I will press amendment 257.

I hear what the cabinet secretary says about the existing powers and the guidance that we have, but it has become very clear that many tenants do not know the full range of their rights and that landlords are not providing them with the information that, as you indicate, they should provide according to the 2016 act and other requirements. What does the Scottish Government intend to do to strengthen those provisions and ensure that landlords comply?

I will come back on that very briefly. You cannot look into something if you do not know that it exists. The amendments are about providing the information to the tenant that unions exist. As you say, the tenant would then need to do their own homework and explore which one might be right for them—if, indeed, they choose to join such a union. However, if they do not know that those unions exist in the first place, they cannot explore which one to join.

The failure rate of 40 per cent shows that the current system is not working. I think that there has to be more than just the one provision in legislation—there has to be an overarching view. I would welcome a little more detail on that. Also, what information are you hoping to get out of the consultation? We know what is wrong. We know that homes are not at appropriate levels, and we know what needs to be done to fix them. What is the consultation seeking to achieve? Why is it necessary? Why can we not just get on and make the changes that we need to make?

Rent controls will work only if tenants are aware of their rights. With rent control areas covering some parts of the country but not others, we have to ensure that how a rent control affects tenants is communicated clearly to them. That is what amendment 273 would do: it would require the landlord to say whether the property was covered by a rent cap. That is not covered by existing legislation or guidance, as rent controls do not currently exist. According to amendment 273, landlords should provide that information to their tenants, as well as advertising to them their right to join a tenants union and their other rights under the private sector charter that is being introduced by Rachael Hamilton, which we also support.

Amendment 274 is a minor amendment that applies the tenants union provisions to the social rented sector.

Tenants unions, such as Living Rent and others, have been a driving force for a fairer private rented sector for years. They have challenged landlords who have neglected their tenants and their properties, they have won hundreds of thousands of pounds in rent cuts and other payments for renters, and they have ensured that much-delayed repairs have been done. Landlords who are compliant with the law and are interested in supporting their tenants—as we are assured that many are—should not be concerned that their tenants will know that they can unionise from day 1 of their tenancy.

I also support amendments 422, 247 and 248, from Mark Griffin and Daniel Johnson. They would empower tenants and, in the case of amendment 422, would ensure protections for landlords and tenants by making what is currently best practice in agreeing inventories into a statutory duty. We believe that it should be statutory.

I appreciate that you are speaking to another member’s amendment, but do you agree with the concern that I raised about tenants having, under amendment 490, a default responsibility to be present at their property to allow people access? Surely ensuring that the property is accessible should be the landlord’s job. Does he agree with that concern about the amendment?

I will take those in turn. There has been quite a lot of discussion about what energy efficiency would look like. We currently have the energy performance certificate ratings, but we expect those to change, which is why we have not defined those in the bill. The use of the affirmative procedure, as provided for by amendment 266, would give the scope to properly define minimum standards on the basis of whatever energy efficiency measures were determined to be appropriate, if not EPC.

There are mechanisms that outline and define quality in housing regulations and in amendments on repairs and standards that we will discuss in later groups. We need to ensure that there are adequate measures, some of which relate to energy efficiency, on things such as draft proofing.

Amendment 266 is consequential to amendment 258 and requires that the regulations that amendment 258 refers to are brought in using the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 451 states that information related to amendments 449 and 450, which we debated a lifetime ago—yesterday morning—would need to be taken into account when determining open market rent.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 214 would require the landlord to specify in the rent increase notice the reasons for the rent being increased. That adds transparency, which is very welcome, and we support that amendment.

Mark Griffin’s amendments 501 and 500 would weaken protections for private tenants of some social sector landlords. We cannot support those weakened protections.

Can I just clarify that the member is referring to minimum standards in energy efficiency as well as quality?

My first amendment in this group, amendment 229, would extend a key protection to tenants of properties that are not in rent control areas and properties that might be exempt from rent controls. Where a rent control area is in place, rent increases would be limited to one increase per property in any 12-month period, even if the tenant changes in that time. It is unclear why, as a matter of principle, all private tenants should not enjoy those basic protections. Amendment 229 would mean that, if the landlord had increased the rent in a previous tenancy less than 12 months before the start of the current tenancy, they would have to set the rent for the current tenancy at no more than the final rent payable under the immediately preceding tenancy. It is a modest and sensible measure to stop landlords taking advantage of a change in tenant to hike rent further.

Amendment 258, in my name, would set the important principle that a rent should not be increased if minimum standards are not met. In partnership with an amendment in a later group, that principle would apply in and outwith rent control areas. I will address that more fully when we discuss the main set of amendments that relate to quality, but there is a clear problem with poor energy efficiency, damp and other problems in some parts of the private rented sector, which I am sure that we are all well aware of. If we freeze or cap rents where minimum standards are not met, landlords will have little choice but to bring their properties up to scratch.

Amendment 266 is consequential to amendment 258 and would ensure that the affirmative procedure is used.