Seòmar agus comataidhean

The challenge that we have is in attempting to keep pace with the amendments that are coming in. Obviously, other members of Parliament will table amendments as they see fit. In the past we have had a better ability to adapt to UK Government amendments and to have discussions before they are tabled. We are not in that space with this bill, unfortunately. There are some lessons that I hope that we can learn, as I mentioned in my introductory remarks, both from when the bill was introduced and the fact that we did not see it before that, particularly given that it is such a complex piece of legislation, and also in the work on the UK Government’s amendments. I will turn to my officials. Do we have a particular timetable that has been estimated for the bill?

Good morning again, convener. Amendments 445 and 447 would require the Scottish ministers to publish guidance on co-housing within 24 months of the bill receiving royal assent. The Scottish ministers would require to define co-housing via regulations and to consult on the preparation of the guidance.

There is no need for a statutory obligation to publish guidance to be put on the Scottish ministers. They could publish guidance on the issue without having a statutory duty to do so, and I commit to doing so. I therefore ask the convener not to press amendment 445 and to work with me with a view to producing Scottish Government guidance on co-housing.

Amendments 554 and 562 would give the Scottish ministers the power to designate a public body to carry out a range of functions that would support those who want to progress a co-operative housing approach. Housing co-operatives are already a valued part of the social housing sector in Scotland, alongside other community-based social landlords and local authority landlords.

Although I understand the desire to support the development of the housing co-operative model as part of the creation of a diverse housing sector in Scotland, I have concerns about the way in which the amendments are set out. It would not be appropriate to oblige a public body to provide financial, tax or litigation advice, and a housing co-operative that acted on the advice of the designated body could seek redress against that body if the advice caused the co-operative to suffer a loss.

In addition, acting as a guarantor against demutualisation could open up the designating body to significant financial and legal risks. It is not clear how the designated body could—or, indeed, whether it should be able to—prevent demutualisation if the co-operative members vote for it.

On promoting co-operative housing, the co-operative model itself, along with—

Certainly.

I support amendment 230 in the name of Bob Doris. It provides a three-year backstop for the commencement of the homelessness prevention provisions in part 5 of the bill. The amendment allows us to maintain progress towards those important new duties while allowing time to develop the appropriate regulations, guidance and training, in partnership with stakeholders and people with lived experience, so as to support successful implementation. Crucially, the amendment also allows us to implement the learning from the Scottish Government’s homelessness prevention pilots, as welcomed by Crisis, Homeless Network Scotland and other stakeholders. Our £4 million investment in the pilots will demonstrate how the bill’s new ask and act duties will work in reality.

I have been clear that we do not need to wait for the new duties to be formally commenced before we have improved co-operation and earlier intervention to prevent homelessness, but I am happy to support amendment 230.

I recognise your point that certain co-operatives struggle to receive advice or support, whether from public agencies or elsewhere. There is a discussion to be had, of the kind that I have had with you and, indeed, with Paul Sweeney, about the importance of housing co-operatives and the need to encourage them.

I would therefore be more than happy to discuss what else could be done to ensure that we not only protect, support and encourage existing housing co-operatives, but encourage further development of the housing co-operative model. However, I am afraid that I will still ask members not to vote for the amendments in this group.

Amendment 568, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, would require the Scottish ministers to review, within two years of the bill receiving royal assent,

“the assessment and classification of properties which could be used as housing, for the purpose of liability for non-domestic rates.”

It would prescribe the factors to be considered in carrying out the review, and would require that ministers publish and lay before Parliament a report that includes a statement of what action, if any, is to be taken.

Although the amendment might be intended to target in particular the assessment and classification of self-catering holiday accommodation, which in many—but not all—cases could be used as housing, other types of property would also be subject to review. For instance, hotels, aparthotels, guest houses, bed and breakfasts, caravans, timeshares and show homes are all potentially suitable for providing housing. The valuation of all non-domestic property, including the classification of properties on the valuation roll, is a matter for Scottish assessors, who are independent of central and local Government.

Assessors carry out regular revaluations of non-domestic properties, and the next revaluation is on 1 April 2026, when the values of all non-domestic properties on the valuation roll will be updated to reflect current market conditions. Assessors are currently collecting relevant information to help to inform that revaluation.

Self-catering accommodation properties are also subject to an annual audit to ensure that they meet the requirements that classify them as self-catering holiday accommodation that is liable for non-domestic rates rather than for council tax. The requirement that owners or occupiers of self-catering properties prove an intention to let for 140 days in the year and evidence of actual letting for 70 days was introduced in 2022, in response to a recommendation of the independent Barclay review, to prevent the owners of second homes or empty homes seeking to have their accommodation classed as non-domestic in order to avoid paying council tax.

Where a property is not determined to be self-catering holiday accommodation for the purposes of non-domestic rates, it will be removed from the valuation roll, and liability to pay council tax will arise.

The independence of assessors and valuation is critical for the credibility of the non-domestic rates system. The Scottish Government keeps all non-domestic rates policies under review. Therefore, I ask the member not to press amendment 568.

Amendment 223, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, seeks to remove current restrictions that relate to the number and size of units that can be developed through permitted development rights, which allow certain developments to go ahead without the need for a planning application.

The rights are specified in secondary legislation, so a new or amended PDR can and should be introduced via a statutory instrument following a public consultation period. In 2021, the Scottish Government introduced a new PDR for the conversion of agricultural buildings to dwellings, subject to certain restrictions, which included a limit of up to five dwellings per farm and a maximum unit size of 150m².

The Minister for Public Finance has confirmed that we will carry out a public consultation this summer on the potential role of PDR in delivering more high-quality homes in the right places, including in rural areas. That consultation exercise will provide an opportunity for all parties to make their views known ahead of any PDR being introduced via a statutory instrument. Given that permitted development rights can already be amended through secondary legislation, and in view of the forthcoming consultation, the housing bill is not an appropriate vehicle for the changes that are being sought.

Amendments 270 and 277, in the name of Mark Griffin, seek to place a duty on Scottish ministers to define conditions that would constitute a housing emergency or an exit from an emergency. In the event that such conditions are met, those amendments would compel ministers to declare a housing emergency, publish a strategy to end the emergency and report on the progress of that strategy.

It is extremely difficult to work on an overall definition of what constitutes a housing emergency. As we have already seen, the reasons for doing so are varied and depend on the pressures that face national and local housing markets, as well as international, UK and Scottish economic contexts. Therefore, one size does not fit all. Responding to the housing emergency is also not the sole responsibility of the Scottish Government; it requires a collaborative and flexible approach from all spheres of Government—UK Government, Scottish Government and local government—and partnership working with the housing sector.

Mr Griffin’s amendment 270 would keep the reasons for declaring a housing emergency limited to those that are set out in regulations. That could potentially give rise to a situation whereby a unique set of localised circumstances, which could not have been foreseen but which impact on a local housing market, are not covered in regulations. Although ministers would be able to amend the regulations, this perhaps demonstrates that inflexible statutory provisions are not suitable to define a scenario that could vary considerably depending on the circumstances that are prevailing at any given time.

Upon declaring a national housing emergency last May, we accepted the need to move quickly and take action. We have done just that, making significant progress in reducing social housing voids, supporting the acquisition of new affordable housing and addressing levels of private sector empty homes in the areas that are suffering from the greatest temporary accommodation and homelessness pressures. We are accountable to the Scottish Parliament and must demonstrate the progress that we are making.

A broad span of ownership and co-operation is required to deliver comprehensive solutions. This is why, over the past year, we have built a strong collaboration with a range of partners, spanning national Government, local government, housing representative bodies, developers, investors, third sector organisations and tenants groups. The housing to 2040 board is central to driving that collaboration, providing external governance for our overall approach.

Although the situation remains difficult, we are determined to maintain our focus and, working with our partners, we will continue to rise to these challenges. As I mentioned earlier, the housing to 2040 board met only yesterday. That is the formula for moving Scotland through and past the current housing emergency.

Amendment 515, in the name of Maggie Chapman, seeks to introduce a power for local authorities to order the compulsory sale or lease of property that has been “vacant or derelict” for a specified period. That would be to enable the property to be used for residential housing. An order would be made

“on the local authority’s own initiative or... on an application by a community body”

and ministers could make “further provision” for those orders in regulations.

I understand and recognise the aims of amendment 515. I reassure Maggie Chapman and the committee that we are committed to doing all that we can to support the best use of land and property in Scotland and to deliver high-quality homes. We have committed to considering the justification for and the practical operation of compulsory sale orders, and we recently asked the Scottish empty homes partnership to look at those powers in the context of long-term empty homes. The results of that work suggest that, although there may be some benefits to a compulsory sale process to complement existing compulsory purchase powers, that would not necessarily result in a simpler, cheaper or quicker tool than compulsory purchase.

We want to build on that work, and I confirm that we intend to consult on compulsory sale or lease orders before the end of this parliamentary session. That consultation could also consider this type of power for wider purposes than residential housing, recognising that there are calls for such powers for a range of purposes that are not just limited to housing.

These are significant powers and they require careful consideration to make sure that they are workable and effective. The compulsory sale or lease of land would be a significant intrusion on the rights of owners under the European Convention on Human Rights, so any legislative framework would need to balance the interests of owners with the interests of the wider community to ensure that measures are appropriate.

Consultation would help to ensure that any such powers will deliver what is needed and that they are appropriate and proportionate. Consultation will also enable us to understand the impact that a compulsory sale or lease order might have on a property owner. That will be vital in building safeguards into the system to protect the interests of property owners by, for example, creating an appeals process or rights to compensation.

There are additional and complex matters to consider in relation to compulsory leasing. A compulsory lease could force a property owner into a contractual relationship that they might have no desire to enter. We would need to be clear about the obligations that would apply to the landlord, and that could also be considered in the forthcoming consultation.

At the same time, compulsory purchase powers can already be used to acquire land and property in a wide range of circumstances, including bringing vacant and derelict land back into use for housing. In recognition of that, in 2025-26, we are funding a pilot to increase the number of local authorities that are systematically using compulsory purchase orders to tackle long-term empty homes.

We are also implementing a comprehensive programme of work to reform and modernise Scotland’s compulsory purchase system, with a view to making it simpler, more streamlined and fairer. A substantial consultation on the proposed changes is planned for September.

As I have already set out, amendment 515 would introduce significant and novel powers, and I am sure that committee members would agree that it is vital that they are workable and that they deliver practical benefits. We will consult on the powers before the end of the current parliamentary session, so, although I share the ambition to make sure that the powers are available to make the best use of our land and buildings, I am afraid that I view amendment 515 as premature at this point.

Amendment 553, in the name of Ariane Burgess, seeks to repeal section 16E, “Publication of list of persons seeking land for self-build housing”, of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, and insert seven new sections relating to registers of persons who are seeking to acquire land to build a home. Those provisions would put additional duties on local authorities and ministers to produce regulations and statutory guidance.

The changes that are proposed in amendment 553 are unnecessary and would add undue complexity. The amendment would replace a provision that was introduced in the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, which already meets the same objective and sits well in the development, planning, and decision-making structure of Scotland’s planning system. It would divert limited planning resources from supporting the priority of development delivery and impact on progress with local development plans and the wider work that is being done to tackle the housing emergency through actions within the planning and housing emergency delivery plan.

I recognise the intent behind many of the amendments in the grouping and I appreciate that difficulties are being experienced by some who are in the property factors system. As Mark Griffin mentioned, members will have knowledge of that from their constituency work, as do I.

However, the amendments that are proposed are very wide ranging and pick out a number of discrete topics across what is a complex and interconnected system. Although I am sympathetic to what members are trying to achieve and the constituency cases that I am sure lie behind many of the amendments, I am concerned about considering issues in isolation from one another and from the wider system. I am also mindful that we have not engaged widely with stakeholders on the issues.

Instead of working in a potentially piecemeal way, I would like to look at any issues in the round and engage with stakeholders to review the system in its entirety to identify what improvements can be made. I wish to take the time to do that work properly and would welcome members contributing to it, instead of pressing forward with the range of amendments that are before us today.

I begin with amendment 507, in the name of Mark Griffin, which would require additional information to be included as part of an application to be a registered property factor. Although I appreciate that the intent is to strengthen the application process, I am not clear on the value that such additional information would provide beyond what is already in the code of conduct, with which all registered property factors must comply, and what property factor enforcement orders already allow for. As those existing provisions appear to be operating as intended, I cannot support the amendment without hearing further from stakeholders on the issues.

I turn to the Government’s amendments in the name of Paul McLennan. Amendments 387 to 392 and 397 modify the existing property factor registration regime to make it work more coherently and effectively. In particular, they clarify when a property factor number is to be disclosed; adjust matters to be considered as part of the fit-and-proper-person test; expand powers to remove property factors from the property factor register when the factor no longer exists; clarify the duty to notify property factors who have been removed from the register in cases where that is not currently possible; require refusals and removals to be noted on the register; allow property factors to seek removal from the register; and confer additional enforcement powers. The amendments will improve the registration scheme and I urge members to support them so that improvements can be brought forward before the review that I mentioned earlier.

It is not clear how amendments 508 and 513, in the name of Mark Griffin, would benefit the system overall. Scottish ministers have the responsibility to assess whether applicants are fit and proper for registration, and consideration is based on all relevant circumstances. The First-tier Tribunal would not have access to the full range of material that is used to determine whether someone is a fit and proper person to carry out property factoring, so amendment 508 would narrow the scope of the fit-and-proper-person test, which would have potentially negative implications for factors’ businesses and for home owners. I therefore cannot support the amendments without more understanding of what is behind them.

I turn to amendments 509 to 511, which relate to provision of certain information to home owners. It is my view that the code of conduct for property factors already caters for the amendments propose. The code covers how fees, charges and works that have already been undertaken or are to be undertaken are handled and communicated, and how factors will co-operate with another factor to allow for a smooth transfer. Without hearing wider views, I am therefore unclear what the amendments would add to the requirements that are already in place. I cannot therefore support the amendments at this time.

On amendment 512, in the name of Mark Griffin, I note that it is already possible for individuals to search whether a property factor is registered to provide services in Scotland, who the property factor is for a certain property or area of land and the latest number of properties that a property factor manages. As already explained, amendment 390, in the name of Paul McLennan, would place a new duty on Scottish ministers to keep a note in the register of any refusal

“to enter a person in the register”

and of any removal from the register

“for the period of 3 years”,

which I hope will reassure Mr Griffin on the matter behind his amendment. Scottish ministers can provide guidance and publish information that they deem appropriate without the need for the amendment. For that reason, I do not support it.

I appreciate the aim of amendments 504 and 517, in the name of Ariane Burgess, but there are already means by which such attention is brought, in the form of evidence gathered by Scottish ministers through compliance monitoring activity, which can and is frequently informed by home owner reports, and by notice from the First-tier Tribunal that a property factor enforcement order has not been complied with. Without further discussion, it is therefore not clear what improvements the amendments would bring, so I cannot support them.

I turn to amendments 505 and 518, also in the name of Ariane Burgess. Amendment 505 would lower the current upper legal threshold that is required for property owners to dismiss a property manager and appoint someone else from “two thirds” to “a majority”,

“unless the title deeds ... provide a lower threshold”.

Existing provision is intended to ensure that title deeds do not impose an unreasonably high threshold to dismiss the manager, such as requiring a unanimous vote. Title deeds can, however, specify a lower threshold, such as a simple majority. When title deeds are silent, existing legislation provides a default rule that allows a simple majority to dismiss the manager.

When the Scottish Government last consulted on that issue in 2013, a majority of respondents did not favour reducing the threshold. Given the changes to the sector since then, it is important that we take time to look at the matter as part of a wider review, as I mentioned earlier. Removal of a property factor is, of course, the final step to address underperformance. So that we can better understand the issue, how it sits in the wider property factor system and any unintended consequences of the proposed changes, I ask Ariane Burgess not to press the amendments.

On amendment 506, in the name of Mark Griffin, I recognise, as I have said, that some users of the system are experiencing difficulties, and I have committed to working with members and stakeholders to consider those in the round, taking the time to do so properly. The amendment would drive too short a timeframe for work of that nature and set a particular scope before we have had time to consider matters. For that reason, I cannot support it, but I emphasise my offer to engage with members and stakeholders to look at the system in the round.

Certainly, on that particular matter, I will ensure that an update is given to the committee following the next board meeting, when we will discuss the update from the CIH and other members of the board.

I recognise the positive intentions behind the amendments in the name of Meghan Gallacher. A decision on the need for a charter should flow from the development of the private rented sector strategy that the board is considering. That would be a better method of developing a charter, should that be felt to be the best way forward in the strategy that is currently being designed. We do not need primary legislation to develop a charter, so it will remain an option following on from development of the strategy. As I have set out, work is under way within the board on that strategy, and I will keep members updated on that.

Amendment 135C, in the name of Maggie Chapman, seeks to enable the charter to go beyond setting out existing legal requirements and create new rights and responsibilities. That raises concerns, because I do not think that a charter would be an appropriate or lawful way to create new rights and responsibilities. That should be done only via primary or secondary legislation.

Amendment 276, also in the name of Maggie Chapman, would require the court or tribunal to take account of the charter in their decisions. Again, I understand the intention behind the amendment, but it is not required because the tribunal and the court already take into account all circumstances of a case when making a decision, and that could involve a charter in the future.

Amendment 256, in the name of Pam Gosal, would require ministers to prepare an annual report on the operation of the legislation in the private rented sector. I agree that it is important to monitor the operation of the legislation, but an inflexible statutory duty is not the best way to achieve that. Members will remember that, during discussions on an earlier grouping, I committed to working with Graham Simpson on an amendment on a five-yearly review of part 1 of the act. As part of that work, we will consider whether anything more is needed. I hope that that reassures Pam Gosal.

Certainly, on that particular matter, I will ensure that an update is given to the committee following the next board meeting, when we will discuss the update from the CIH and other members of the board.

I recognise the positive intentions behind the amendments in the name of Meghan Gallacher. A decision on the need for a charter should flow from the development of the private rented sector strategy that the board is considering. That would be a better method of developing a charter, should that be felt to be the best way forward in the strategy that is currently being designed. We do not need primary legislation to develop a charter, so it will remain an option following on from development of the strategy. As I have set out, work is under way within the board on that strategy, and I will keep members updated on that.

Amendment 135C, in the name of Maggie Chapman, seeks to enable the charter to go beyond setting out existing legal requirements and create new rights and responsibilities. That raises concerns, because I do not think that a charter would be an appropriate or lawful way to create new rights and responsibilities. That should be done only via primary or secondary legislation.

Amendment 276, also in the name of Maggie Chapman, would require the court or tribunal to take account of the charter in their decisions. Again, I understand the intention behind the amendment, but it is not required because the tribunal and the court already take into account all circumstances of a case when making a decision, and that could involve a charter in the future.

Amendment 256, in the name of Pam Gosal, would require ministers to prepare an annual report on the operation of the legislation in the private rented sector. I agree that it is important to monitor the operation of the legislation, but an inflexible statutory duty is not the best way to achieve that. Members will remember that, during discussions on an earlier grouping, I committed to working with Graham Simpson on an amendment on a five-yearly review of part 1 of the act. As part of that work, we will consider whether anything more is needed. I hope that that reassures Pam Gosal.