Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am conscious that I am offering to work on a great deal over the summer with committee members. I am also conscious of their commitments over the summer, particularly in constituencies, and of the time limit in relation to what we can achieve before the election. I want to send that letter because I am keen to set out the Government’s suggested workload and to seek the committee’s views on that, so that there is full openness on what we expect to be able to do and in which areas.

However, I hesitate to give timeframes for each area because I am notching up quite a lot of commitments. I want to make sure, when I look at the totality, in the round, that those commitments are genuinely deliverable and that I do not overpromise—or, indeed, ruin everybody’s summer holidays to too great an extent.

Convener, I assure you that I am nearly there. I will move on to amendments 409, 413 and 414, in the name of Katy Clark. Amendment 409 would introduce a new offence, with the potential for a prison sentence, for landlords who are found to have misled the tribunal or misled a tenant into ending a tenancy. I understand and sympathise with the hardship that wrongful termination can cause, as we have mentioned, and I agree that it is vital that suitable recourse and proportionate compensation are available. However, I do not think that amendment 409 is necessary, as I have already set out in relation to amendment 141.

Amendment 413 seeks to increase the maximum penalty that can be applied for wrongful termination, from six months’ rent to 36 months’ rent. I am supportive of deterring landlord malpractice and, as I have set out, amendment 369 seeks to do that.

I sympathise with the intent of amendment 414; however, I cannot support it. As I said in relation to other amendments in the group, there are existing offences that can be used in relation to the provision of false information to tribunal proceedings, and, through the bill, we are strengthening penalties in relation to wrongful determination. Therefore, I urge Katy Clark not to move amendment 414.

Mark Griffin’s amendment 502 would prevent an eviction where the landlord has received ECO4 funding for energy efficiency measures in the previous 12 months. I recognise the good intent behind the amendment, but I cannot support it. The amendment does not enable a landlord’s circumstances to be taken into account, so it does not strike a proportionate balance between the rights of tenants and landlords.

There are existing protections through the legal framework that ensure that all circumstances of a case are taken into account when deciding whether it is reasonable to grant an eviction. I share Mark Griffin’s concern about the issue of potentially vulnerable tenants being evicted after such funding has been received. However, the design of the ECO4 scheme is decided by United Kingdom Government ministers, and they did not agree to the changes that we proposed last year to strengthen the safeguards for householders. I would welcome Mark Griffin’s support in pressing UK ministers to do that urgently, but I urge him not to move amendment 502.

For the reasons that I have set out, I ask members to support the amendments in the name of Paul McLennan. I urge Meghan Gallacher, Fulton MacGregor, Edward Mountain, Willie Rennie, Maggie Chapman, Emma Roddick, Mark Griffin and Katy Clark not to press or move their amendments. If they do so, I urge the committee not to support the amendments.

I agree that such a case should not get to the point of going through a tribunal. That goes back to a point that we have raised on many issues, about being able to support tenants in better recognition of their rights and landlords in recognition of their obligations. However, we also need to take account—in the private rented sector, for example—of aspects such as shared accommodation and whether other tenants have allergies.

I completely appreciate Maggie Chapman’s point. The case studies that she mentioned are clearly very concerning, which is why it is important that we do further work on tenants’ rights and landlords’ responsibilities on those issues. However, I unfortunately remain persuaded that the amendments are not necessary and that we can achieve the outcome that Maggie Chapman and I wish to achieve in other ways.

Amendments 523 and 532 in the name of Emma Roddick and amendments 24 and 28 in the name of Maggie Chapman seek to reduce the period in which landlords must respond to a pet request. We recognise that pets are important members of people’s families and believe that tenants should be able to benefit from the experience of pet ownership, as is the case for most other households, including my own.

Amendment 523 would reduce the period for private landlords to respond to a pet request from 42 days to 28 days, and amendment 24 would reduce the period to 14 days. I am concerned that reducing the period to 14 days might result in disputes that could be avoided if a slighter longer period is in place. Even if a landlord is content to agree to a request, the landlord might have further questions. Ensuring that there is enough time for the landlord and tenant to discuss the request will help both parties. The landlord might otherwise be unable to consent, only because there has not been enough time to agree reasonable conditions.

As part of our landlord and tenant engagement questionnaire, we consulted on the appropriate timescale for a landlord to respond. In setting the timescale at 42 days, we tried to strike a balance between providing landlords with a reasonable timescale to consider and respond to a tenant’s request and ensuring that the timescale is not unreasonably long from a tenant’s perspective. The timescale is also aligned to that for the consideration of a request to make a category 2 change to the property. However, I recognise that there are concerns, including from animal rights charities, that 42 days is too long. I am therefore happy to work with both members to consider the timescale before stage 3. On that basis, I ask the members not to move those amendments.

Amendment 532 would reduce the period for social landlords to respond to a pet request from one month to 28 days, whereas amendment 28 would reduce the period to 14 days. I am concerned that reducing the period to 14 days may result in unnecessary disputes, in a similar way to the private sector. The period of one month is a bit more onerous than the 42 days that are afforded to the private sector, but that was considered reasonable given that social landlords already respond within a month to other requests from tenants, such as requests to take a lodger, sublet, assign a tenancy or exchange a house. I think that it is helpful for social landlords to have a consistent period for responding to such requests, but I am happy to discuss that matter again with members. On that basis, I ask the members not to move their amendments.

Amendment 25, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would change the provision so that, when a private landlord fails to respond, a request would be automatically approved. I am concerned that there would be negative consequences to an assumed consent model in the private rented sector. For example, it would be difficult to remedy disputes in cases in which a landlord has not responded, or appears not to have responded, to a request in the timeframe, but there was a legitimate reason for a delayed response. If the tenant had assumed consent and had already obtained a pet in the interim, that would create significant issues. On that basis, I ask the member not to press the amendment.

As I have said to committee members and other interested parties, I am always happy to have another meeting so that members can try to persuade me further, even though they have not managed to get Government support in the run-up to stage 3. If Mr Greer would like one more try at that in the run-up to stage 3, we can do that, but I suggest that his chances of success are low. However, I will never say never and, if he would like to take me up on the invitation, I would be happy to have that discussion.

Based on the work that I have undertaken for the bill, I am content with the Government’s current position, and I do not feel that we will change our mind on that in the run-up to stage 3. I must be honest with Mr Greer. I promise to meet many people and I genuinely want to work with him, but it is important that I am realistic about his chances of persuading the Government, although I do not know about his chances of persuading other members.

I am happy to carry on having these conversations with Maggie Chapman in the run-up to stage 3 if she thinks that there is a flaw in what is being suggested by the Government at stage 2, or a gap in the proposals that would create problems for tenants. I have tried to set out that we believe that it is important that there is a process in place that is based on the rent cap and does not have a subjective process attached to it. However, with that caveat, if there are further discussions that we can have ahead of stage 3, I would be happy to carry on with those. The Government has been clear about the importance of the rent cap in providing clarity to landlords and tenants.

Amendment 139, in the name of Emma Roddick, and amendment 238, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would both require a rent officer to impose a financial penalty on a landlord that would require the landlord to pay a sum to the tenant if the rent officer were to find that a rent increase notice that was referred to them for verification proposes an increase above the level of the rent cap. The amendments would provide for different financial penalties, either three times the amount that was requested by the landlord above the rent cap or an amount of £10,000.

Amendment 140, in the name of Emma Roddick, and amendment 239, in the name of Maggie Chapman, are similar. The amendments relate to cases in which a landlord or tenant refers a rent officer’s determination under section 43M of the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 for review and the rent officer finds that the proposed rent is above the level of the cap. In those circumstances, the rent officer would be obliged to issue an order for the landlord to pay a penalty to the tenant. The amendments would provide for different financial penalties: either three times the amount or an amount of up to £10,000.

The amendments do not include a defence of reasonable excuse for a landlord, which may have included making a genuine error. There would also be no right of appeal to an independent impartial tribunal, nor would there be discretion for the rent officer to not impose a penalty when they consider that a penalty is not appropriate.

In addition, rent service Scotland is a non-judicial body and rent officers are arguably not equipped to make a judgment on the culpability of a landlord or on the appropriate level of penalty. As such, there would likely require to be a further level of consideration, potentially by the First-tier Tribunal, which would create a far more complex and costly process than is set out in the amendments.

Although I have concerns about the details of the amendments, which mean that I cannot support them, I understand the concerns that the members are seeking to address through them. I urge Emma Roddick and Maggie Chapman not to move their amendments. Instead, I offer to work with them, similar to my offer on amendments 137 and 237, which were debated in an earlier group. I would be happy to discuss the issues further, ahead of stage 3, with a view to reaching an agreement on what might be appropriate. I hope that that would address the concerns that they have quite rightly raised in committee today.

Finally, amendment 240, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would require the First-tier Tribunal to impose a financial penalty on a landlord, ordering them to pay a sum to the tenant if the tribunal finds that the initial rent under the tenancy was set too high or that the first rent increase was introduced too early. The penalty would be up to £10,000. Again, there is no defence of reasonable excuse for a landlord who might have made a genuine error, and there is no discretion for the tribunal not to impose a penalty where it considers that the penalty is not appropriate. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment, and I urge Ms Chapman not to move it.

I urge Emma Roddick, Rachael Hamilton and Maggie Chapman not to move their amendments in this group and instead to work with me ahead of stage 3 to consider whether we can find consensus on possible changes to penalties on landlords who do not comply with their duties under this part of the bill.

The consultation for both the social and private rented sectors will be held in the current calendar year. I will come to this later in my comments on the group, but it has been raised in the conversations that colleagues have had with me—and this is demonstrated in the amendments that have been lodged—that the powers exist in many places but they are not being used, for a number of reasons. I am keen to get to the details of why they are not being used. In this case, I believe that a change to the primary legislation is required, with timescales, to ensure that the standards requirements are being implemented. In other cases, a non-legislative approach might be taken, but in this case I am convinced that we need to change the legislation to make the changes happen that we all want to see.

I very much agree with Mr Simpson’s premise that something further needs to be done. That is exactly why the Government is committed to a consultation this calendar year, which will include details of hazards and timescales. We have had that power in the past. What we will come to, in a myriad of points during this grouping in particular, is that, for whatever reason, those powers are not being enforced to adequate standards. That is why the Government will bring forward a list of hazards and timescales as per the work that is being done in England. We are not just saying, “There is a power” and doing nothing about it; we are undertaking a consultation with further details, to ensure that that happens.

Amendments 231A, 443, 444, 448 and 446 all seek to remove Scottish ministers’ discretion as to how to apply Awaab’s law in the social and private rented sectors. That element of discretion is needed to enable us to consult stakeholders and engage with the UK Government to ensure that private tenants in Scotland are at least as protected in relation to repairs as those in England and Wales are. I am happy to work with Graham Simpson to identify any issues that he has with the proposals for Awaab’s law, but we need to take cognisance of the work that has been happening in England as the UK Government moves through the consultation process on the complexity of that work and of our obligations, to make sure that we get this right on behalf of tenants.

Amendments 221 and 222, in the name of Mark Griffin, look at more general repairs in social and private tenancies. Amendment 221 would, via regulations, oblige Scottish ministers to confer a right on a tenant in a social tenancy to have certain prescribed hazards repaired. It would also amend a social landlord’s repairing obligations to provide that they must

“ensure that there are no prescribed hazards”

within the house. Amendment 222 would amend the repairing standard in the 2006 act to oblige a private landlord to ensure that there are no current or prospective prescribed hazards in the house.

Amendments 221 and 222 would oblige landlords to ensure that there are no prescribed hazards in the property, but the landlord might not be in a position to know whether such hazards are present. An obligation to remedy defects and hazards once they are known would be more achievable. The amendments also cut across the existing rights of social and private tenants to have repairs carried out, thereby creating a confusing regulatory landscape for landlords and tenants. As those issues are already provided for in law, I cannot support those amendments. Again, I point Mr Griffin to the work that is being undertaken on Awaab’s law in both the social and private rented sectors.

Amendments 257 and 267, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would provide that rent for private residential tenancies in a rent control area cannot not be increased unless the property

“meets minimum standards specified by the Scottish ministers in regulations.”

Similarly, amendment 442, in the name of Ariane Burgess, would place a duty on ministers to create, through affirmative regulation, a new lettable standard that all residential properties must meet.

Although I agree with Ms Chapman and Ms Burgess on the importance of all rented properties complying with appropriate standards, statutory standards and enforcement measures are already in place for rented properties. The repairing standard already obliges landlords to keep their property to specified standards, with enforcement mechanisms being available should they fail to do so. The tolerable standard applies to all houses in a local authority area. The Scottish housing quality standard applies to properties in the social rented sector. There are existing enabling powers that could be used to enhance those standards where required.

Meghan Gallacher raises an issue that SLE has raised directly with the minister. He has offered to work with others to see whether something can be done on the issue before stage 3. It is a very complex issue—Meghan Gallacher has just laid out but one example of that—which requires careful consideration and, potentially, multiple changes in multiple pieces of law. That is why the minister is keen to carry on that conversation with SLE. We would, of course, be happy to discuss the matter directly with Meghan Gallacher as well.

I was going to talk about that in my very next paragraph. Previously, social landlords were required to meet higher standards for their rented properties than those for private landlords, but the strengthened repairing standard, which was effective from 1 March 2024, has largely aligned the standards across both rented sectors. There are now very limited areas where rented sector standards are not fully aligned, and the Scottish Government has an ambition to ensure full alignment of housing standards in the future.

Adding a further two new housing standards via amendments 257 and 267 would create considerable confusion for landlords, tenants and local authorities as to which standards the landlord must comply with. There are already broad powers to amend the existing standards, and I consider that using those powers would be a more appropriate way to address any gaps that members believe exist in the regulatory requirements.

I am happy to work with Ms Chapman and Ms Burgess, in the run-up to stage 3, on areas where they are concerned that the gap in standards remains between the social and private rented sectors, in order to see whether any changes are required. However, those changes might not need to be made through the bill, as it may be possible to make them in regulation, as I have already mentioned.

Amendments 438, 439, 557 and 558, in the name of Ariane Burgess, would create a power for a local authority to inspect a house that is entered in the landlord register and to impose a fine of up to £10,000 on the landlord if the house does not comply with the tolerable standard.

There are existing enforcement mechanisms for the repairing standard under the 2006 act and for the tolerable standard under the 1987 act. Under the terms of the 2006 act, the First-tier Tribunal can impose a repairing standard enforcement order if a property fails the repairing standard. Under section 30 of the 2006 act, a local authority can issue a works notice if a property is considered to be substandard—a category that would include properties that fail the tolerable standard.

Those enforcement mechanisms build in a period during which the landlord can remedy the defect in a property, and Ms Burgess’s amendments would not afford landlords that period of grace. Furthermore, it is not clear in those amendments whether local authorities would be expected to inspect all private rented tenancies in their areas or to do so only when they had a suspicion that standards were not being complied with. I therefore ask Ms Burgess not to move the amendments, because there are existing measures to deal with those issues and existing powers that can be used to strengthen the repairing standard, the tolerable standard and the inspection process.

I will come back to Ms Gallacher in writing about the consultation, but it will be launched this autumn. I am happy to reflect on the points that she has raised and to get back to her once I have had a further opportunity to speak to Paul McLennan, who leads on the issue, about where the drafting of the consultation has got to, and what its scope will be. If she will allow me to come back to her in writing once I have had those discussions, I will be happy to do so.

Amendments 552 and 555, in the name of Jamie Halcro Johnston, seek to restrict policy making in any future attempt to regulate heating systems. The Government’s approach has long recognised that there might be a need for secondary heating systems, particularly in rural and island communities, and our approach protects the use of direct-emission secondary heating systems if required. For example, the recent new build heat standard already allows for secondary heating systems of the kind specified in amendment 552. It should be made very clear that a vote against that amendment is not a vote against wood-burning stoves or other secondary heating systems, as the amendment is not needed to protect their use.

The fact is that amendments 552 and 555 are simply unnecessary. My concern with them is that they could tie the hands of future Governments, particularly where there remains scope for technological advancement. That is not appropriate, and therefore I cannot support the amendments.