Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am grateful for the discussions that I have had with members, particularly Mark Griffin and Meghan Gallacher, on the issues raised by the amendments in this group. I also thank Marie Curie for the meetings that we have had to discuss the issues for tenants who are terminally ill and their families that have prompted the amendments in this group. Those issues include concerns about the length of time for which a person must currently have lived in a let property before they can succeed to a tenancy, which is 12 months in both the social and private rented sectors, and the time by which an occupier has to leave a let property after the tenant’s death.

I turn first to amendments 520 and 521, in the name of Meghan Gallacher. Amendment 520 would remove the current 12-month qualifying residence period before partners, members of a tenant’s family or carers are entitled to succeed to a Scottish secure tenancy following the death of the tenant. Amendment 521 would make the same change in relation to private residential tenancies under the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016. Those amendments would remove the qualifying period and would require only that the house must be that person’s only or principal home at the time of the tenant’s death.

In addition, amendments 520 and 521 seek to change the amount of time that a person who could succeed to the tenancy but does not wish to do so must be given before they must leave the property. There is currently a process for that in the social rented sector. Amendment 520 would change the period of time that a tenant in such circumstances has before they must leave the property, raising it from three months to six months. I see the benefits for tenants but would like to further consider the impact of that change in relation to the duty on social landlords to make the best use of their housing stock. Initial discussions with some social landlords have raised some concerns and, in a housing emergency, any delay in being able to allocate a property when an individual has indicated that they do not wish to remain there must be carefully considered. However, I am happy to commit to further exploring that aspect of the amendment with Meghan Gallacher and Marie Curie ahead of stage 3. Should social landlords not make a substantive case, I am content to work with Meghan Gallacher on that area, and I particularly thank her for the conversations that we have had in the past few weeks and for her commitment to moving forward on the issue.

Amendment 521 would make changes to the 2016 act to introduce a similar mechanism for qualifying private tenants who do not wish to succeed to a tenancy. That would mean that private landlords would have to give a tenant who has already automatically succeeded to a private residential tenancy six months’ notice to leave that tenancy if they write to the landlord to say that they do not wish to become the tenant. Existing legislation already provides greater protection for tenants in those circumstances, because qualifying tenants automatically succeed to the tenancy and can stay for as long as they choose. The change is, therefore, unnecessary and would actually reduce existing rights.

Amendments 520 and 521 would also introduce a new mandatory requirement on landlords to give reasonable assistance to the tenant to find alternative accommodation, and I recognise the positive intent behind that. Social landlords are already required to provide housing options advice for those at risk of becoming homeless, so that homelessness is prevented as early as possible, which means that the new requirement is therefore not necessary. Private landlords will not usually have the necessary training or resources to provide housing options advice and assistance to tenants, so I do not think that they are best placed to support a tenant who needs or wishes to move to alternative accommodation. A more effective approach would be to work with Marie Curie and other relevant stakeholders to develop a practice note that would support private landlords whose tenant has a terminal illness or dies. That would be the appropriate resource to encourage landlords to provide tenants with signposting to the organisations that are best placed to provide support and advice in those circumstances.

I understand the concerns raised by the member and Marie Curie that the current qualifying period contributes to housing insecurity and increases distress and trauma for terminally ill people, their families and carers, which can cause profound emotional and practical disruption when they are at their most vulnerable. I have also reflected on previous consideration of the issue, which resulted in the extension, through the Housing (Scotland) Act 2014, of the qualifying period from six to 12 months—a position also taken in the 2016 act. The qualifying residence period for succession must be balanced with the need to make best use of the limited social housing that is available and with the property rights of landlords. On balance, I think that the 12-month qualifying period should be changed and, therefore, ask members to support amendments 383 and 384, in the name of Paul McLennan, which would reduce that qualifying period from 12 to six months.

I ask Meghan Gallacher not to move amendments 520 and 521, in the light of Government amendments 383 and 384 and my commitment to explore, at stage 3, a change to the timescale for leaving a property where a succeeding tenant declines the tenancy.

I also reiterate my commitment to progress the development of guidance for private landlords to help them to support terminally ill tenants and their families.

I move amendment 383.

I again thank all the members with whom I have had discussions about the amendments in this group. Those discussions have been a good example of the kind of discussions that we can have on exceptionally sensitive issues. We all come from the same starting point, which is that we want to be able to support people with a terminal illness and their loved ones in the most difficult of circumstances.

This group of amendments is an example of our ability to make a real difference to people, which does not arise in many cases. I thank Marie Curie for the intensive work that it has done directly with my officials to provide case studies for me to examine to enable me to identify where there are flaws or gaps in the law, or where there is an issue with tenants not understanding their rights or landlords not understanding their obligations. That has been very helpful as we have sought to make progress on the issue.

I believe that changes need to be made to the amendments that Meghan Gallacher has lodged, for the reasons that I have explained, but I share her intent of providing the best possible assistance to people who, along with their loved ones, might be in the worst of circumstances.

Amendment 383 agreed to.

Amendment 384 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.

Amendments 520 and 521 not moved.

Section 39—Social landlords: delivery of notices etc

Amendments 456 and 423 not moved.

Section 39 agreed to.

Section 40 agreed to.

After section 40

Amendments 422 and 247 not moved.

Amendment 273 moved—[Maggie Chapman].

We do. The only potential difference is that I would consider whether we need to do something new or to ensure that what we have in place is robust and working for all those who require it.

That brings me to Ross Greer’s amendments 189 and 195. I would be grateful if Graham Simpson would allow me to discuss those now, because I will then wrap up and talk about the potential way forward for Mr Greer’s amendments and Mr Simpson’s amendments together.

Ross Greer’s amendments 189 and 195 provide for the establishment of a rent guarantor scheme for estranged young people. I am sympathetic to the outcomes that he seeks to achieve. However, that situation would be complex and it would have ongoing, unknown financial implications. Given that a number of rent guarantor schemes already exist across Scotland, which are operated by universities, local authorities and charities, I am not convinced that setting up a new scheme via a public body would be the best way to deliver increased support for estranged young people.

However, I recognise the concern that Ross Greer has and I see the gaps that he has alluded to in the current set-up. Dealing with that is particularly important, but not only for estranged young people.

I would indeed, and my very next paragraph was to say that the aspects that Willie Rennie, Meghan Gallacher and now Ross Greer have mentioned reiterate a concern from the Church of Scotland. I appreciate its desire to make its housing stock available to assist with the housing emergency where possible and I am keen to have those discussions with the Church of Scotland to ensure that we can work through its concerns. I hope that that will provide the reassurance that we all want to see and that I believe to be the intent behind the amendments. I am happy for those discussions to take place between the Church of Scotland and me and my officials.

Amendment 187, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would insert into the 2016 act a new section that would extend notice periods for ending a tenancy, for example, when there are rent arrears, to four months rather than the current 28 days, or to 12 months rather than the current 84 days, when the landlord is ending the tenancy in order to sell, or the property is to be sold by the lender. That change would make it harder for a landlord who needed to sell a property due to financial hardship; it would delay the sale for a substantial period and contribute to that hardship. It would also mean that a landlord could not end a tenancy quickly when there was antisocial behaviour or the property had been abandoned. Scottish ministers are committed to a wider review of repossession grounds, and that issue is best considered as part of that work. Again, I appreciate what Maggie Chapman is looking to do with her amendments, but I am concerned about their unintended consequences.

I am sure that we will come to that question during the review of repossession grounds, when we will get into the details of those aspects. We cannot sort out the details of that issue in the bill, but we will clearly have to look at it.

Again, I make the point that there is no point in having those aspects in legislation if we are not able to make use of them, whether because of monitoring or other areas where there are gaps in implementation. We must look at the use of the legislation, and awareness of rights is a key aspect of that. The monitoring is indeed challenging.

Amendments 522 and 564, in the name of Emma Roddick, would provide for a new appeal route if a private landlord withdraws consent for a pet because the tenant has not complied with the reasonable conditions imposed. There exist routes of recourse in the private rented sector through the First-tier Tribunal in relation to a breach of the tenancy agreement, which could be used in those circumstances.

Although I think that the amendments are unnecessary, I appreciate the member’s desire for clarity on the issue, because it is an exceptionally important point. Guidance for tenants and landlords will be important in supporting those new rights, and further support on that type of issue will be addressed through that guidance. I give Emma Roddick reassurance on that point and therefore ask her not to press amendment 522 and not to move amendment 564.

Emma Roddick’s amendment 259 and Maggie Chapman’s amendment 263, and her associated amendments 260, 261, 264 and 265, would allow private and social tenants to keep an assistance animal without the landlord’s consent. While I am sympathetic to the sought outcome, I do not think that the amendments are necessary, because a disabled tenant can already ask a landlord to keep an assistance animal. If the tenant requires any such animal, such a request cannot be unreasonably refused. Under the Equality Act 2010, that is known as making a “reasonable adjustment”. The amendments are likely to confuse matters as they do not take account of other tenants’ needs or the property’s suitability. We can address the issue that Maggie Chapman has raised today around guidance, and it is now easier to seek redress through the tribunal. I recognise the concerns that Maggie Chapman has raised, but I suggest that there is another way to address them.

The tenant can appeal an unreasonable refusal, so I hope that that reassures Maggie Chapman that they would have the ability to appeal. As an animal lover and a pet owner, I am concerned that we would be asking people to have to rehome their pets or to find them alternative accommodation, when those pets are, in effect, members of their family. The issues that are raised with assumed consent would be quite concerning for the tenant and, indeed, the pet.

Amendments 524 to 527 in the name of Emma Roddick would remove the ability of a tenant to seek redress where a landlord has failed to respond to a pet request. I understand that the amendments intend to support the effective operation of the deemed consent model that is proposed under amendment 25. I have already set out my concerns about the risks that that model would create, and I do not think that that is the right way to deliver improved rights in this area. I ask the member not to move her amendments.

I recognise that, which is why am more than happy to work with you and Maggie Chapman on the timings for how long some of the decisions can, and should, take. I appreciate the support that a person can draw from the company of their pet, and that the costs that would be incurred by placing them in a cattery or kennels can be quite substantial, even over a short period of time. As I have set out, although there are reasons for the timings that the Government has proposed, Emma Roddick’s and Maggie Chapman’s amendments have importantly highlighted the issues and that we do not have the balance correct. I am more than happy to see what can be done before stage 3 in order to try to alleviate some of the concerns and to assist with the points that Emma Roddick has just made.

Amendment 370 in the name of Paul McLennan is a minor technical amendment correcting a previous typo, which makes no change to the effect of the provision.

Amendments 168 to 172 and amendments 180 to 182, in the name of Edward Mountain, relate to reasonable conditions for approval to keep a pet. I recognise that Mr Mountain is seeking to provide greater clarity and certainty in the bill with regard to ensuring that ministers make use of the regulation-making powers that the bill provides for and on some of the detail that they should cover. For example, that would include setting out that it would be a reasonable condition for approval for the landlord to require the tenant to have the property professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy.

I note that, in order to make those additional rights operational, regulations will need to be introduced to set out further detail. The details of what would be considered an unreasonable refusal or reasonable conditions for approval must be developed in consultation with landlords, tenants and other relevant stakeholders. I firmly believe that that is the right approach, and that is why the bill specifically includes statutory provisions that require consultation for the exercise of the regulation-making powers under the affirmative procedure. We will include in that work the aspects that are highlighted by these amendments, and I therefore ask Mr Mountain not to move them.

Amendments 26 and 27, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would amend the bill so that the Scottish ministers “must” make use of the regulation-making powers in the bill to set out when it is reasonable for a landlord to refuse to consent to a tenant keeping a pet. I can reassure members of the committee that, although the provisions as drafted use the word “may”, making use of the regulation-making powers will be an essential part of the bill’s implementation. Effective guidance will be essential to the successful implementation of those measures, as will ensuring that landlords are provided with sufficient information to inform their decisions. I therefore ask the member not to move those amendments.

I turn to the other amendments in the group, which are in the name of Emma Roddick. Amendments 528 and 529 seek to provide greater clarity and certainty in the bill. Current provisions in the bill already mean that refusal and any consent conditions must be reasonable—which is the appropriate test—and amendment 528 is therefore not needed.

Amendment 529 includes aspects that the regulations may cover, and I do not believe that the amendment is necessary either. As I have made clear, we are committed to consulting further with landlords and tenants on the detail that should be included in regulations under the affirmative procedure, in order to support the operation of the new rights. There is already a duty in the bill in connection with that, and I can reassure members that the aspects that are covered in the amendment will also form part of that work.

On that basis, I ask Ms Roddick not to move amendments 528 and 529.

Amendments 530 and 531 relate to the refusal of a request to keep a pet by a social landlord. They would make it a condition that landlord refusal is

“necessary and proportionate”

and that there is

“clear reasoning or supporting evidence”.

A tenant who is unhappy about the landlord’s decision to refuse their request can appeal using the landlord’s complaints process, and has a further route of redress beyond that to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. I believe that any additional conditions for refusal are best developed, once again, through consultation and engagement with the sector and set through secondary legislation.

Amendment 533 seeks to provide that, where a social landlord fails to respond to a pet request within the period required, the landlord is “deemed to have consented”. What the member is seeking is provided for by new paragraph 8H, which is inserted into the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 by section 30(3) of the bill. On that basis, I do not think that anything more is needed to deliver what is being sought, and I therefore ask Emma Roddick not to move the amendment.

Amendments 534 and 563 would provide for a new appeal route if a social landlord withdraws consent for a pet because the tenant has not complied with the reasonable conditions imposed. All social landlords provide their tenants with a written tenancy agreement, which sets out their tenancy obligations, including the conditions to which the tenant is required to adhere in relation to keeping pets. Any breach of tenancy conditions could result in appropriate and proportionate action being taken by the landlord, which could include, where necessary, withdrawal of consent to keep a pet.

I believe that, if any changes are required to the existing process for withdrawal of consent by social landlords, those are best developed through consultation and engagement with the sector, and set through secondary legislation, following public and parliamentary scrutiny. I therefore ask Ms Roddick not to move the amendments.

In summary, for the reasons that I have set out, I ask Emma Roddick, Maggie Chapman and Edward Mountain not to press or move their amendments in the group.

I turn to amendments 173 to 179, in the name of Edward Mountain, in relation to making changes to let property.

Amendment 173 places a statutory duty on a tenant who has made a category 1 or category 2 change to a let property to ensure that the property is returned to its original state at the end of the tenancy, unless the landlord agrees otherwise. That might discourage some tenants from making use of their right to make changes to the let property, and even perceived improvements might have to be stripped back if the landlord did not agree that they could remain, with no test of the reasonableness or proportionality of that requirement. Measures in the bill enable the Scottish ministers, following consultation, to set out through regulation a non-exhaustive list of reasonable conditions that a landlord might set, where they consent to a category 2 change, such as reinstatement at the end of a tenancy, where it was reasonable in the circumstances to do so. Where a tenant did not view that as a reasonable condition, they would have a route of redress through the tribunal.

In relation to amendments 174 to 179, I recognise that Mr Mountain is seeking to provide greater clarity and certainty in the bill as well as to ensure that ministers make use of the regulation-making powers. I reassure committee members that, although the current drafting of the provisions uses the word “may”, making use of these regulation-making powers will be an essential part of the implementation. The framework that relates to personalisation would require that detail be filled in via regulations in order to set out the pertinent definitions.

I understand that landlords and tenants will be keen to understand what it will be possible to do without consent under category 1—for example, putting up a picture—and what will fall under category 2, such as painting walls, which will need consent. However, I am clear that it is essential that the detail of the types of changes that fall into each category is best developed through consultation and engagement with the sector and set through secondary legislation. That is why the bill specifically includes statutory provisions that require consultation for the exercise of the regulation-making powers under the affirmative procedure. That will ensure that we take account of landlords’ and tenants’ views. It will also ensure further public and parliamentary scrutiny of how the powers are used.

Amendment 252, in the name of Maggie Chapman, seeks to set out some of the detail of category 1 changes that would not require the landlord’s permission. The amendment is exceptionally broad in scope and would allow for a very broad range of changes to the outside of a property without the landlord’s involvement. Although I recognise that the member has specified in the amendment that the change must be reasonable, as these would be category 1 changes, the landlord would have no ability to prevent the change, if given prior knowledge, or recourse, where they did not view the change as reasonable after it was carried out.

When providing new rights to tenants, legislation must strike the right balance with the rights of landlords. Amendment 252 would not do that, so I cannot support it. The detail of the changes that are to be included in categories 1 and 2 are best provided through the secondary legislation that I have mentioned and developed through consultation with landlords and tenants. Existing measures in the bill provide the framework for that, and that is the right way to facilitate greater rights for tenants while respecting landlords’ rights.

Amendment 262, which is also in the name of Maggie Chapman, sets out a broad range of changes that a disabled tenant or a tenant who is a guardian or carer of a disabled member of the household could make without needing permission. I am very sympathetic to the outcome that Ms Chapman is seeking to achieve and I, too, wish to see the lives of disabled tenants, guardians and carers made easier. However, as with amendment 252, this amendment would allow for a broad range of potentially very significant changes to a let property without any involvement of the landlord. Setting that out in the bill without consultation or engagement on the provisions with tenants and landlords would not enable us to ensure that we have the right balance between the respective rights.

Existing measures in the bill provide the overarching framework that is needed for us to get this right. As I indicated, further consultation is required to inform the types of changes that would fall into categories 1 and 2. The regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which will ensure additional scrutiny from Parliament. That is the best way to deliver rights in the area while ensuring that they are compatible with landlords’ rights.

I therefore ask the members not to press the amendments in this group.

I thank Mr Fraser for giving me the opportunity to come back in. The case that he raises is a concern. Members who have sat through numerous groups of amendments to the bill know that we have had several discussions about the current law, but my speaking notes have never just said that the current law is there and therefore there is not a problem. The current law is there, but it is not working for the residents, which is clearly an issue in this area.

I mentioned that the Minister for Housing had written to all councils, but it is important that we seek further reassurance—both for Mr Fraser and, importantly, for the residents who have raised these issues—hear the feedback on the minister’s letter and see whether further work is being done on the matter. I recognise the concern that Murdo Fraser rightly raises, and the quote from the council shows, if it needed to be shown, that more work needs to be done.