Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendments 232 to 236 aim to allow tenants to apply to their landlord to have the long lease of their rented property converted to ownership. Long leases in this context are leases that have been granted over property for more than 175 years.

The Scottish Parliament considered the issue in 2012 and passed legislation that converted long leases into outright ownership, where the remaining term of the lease was at least 100 years on a specified date. Amendments 232 to 236 would capture long leases that were not automatically converted into ownership by that legislation, provided that there are at least 50 years left to run on the lease. There is a separate amendment to reduce that to five years.

The issue was not discussed during stage 1 evidence or with stakeholders more widely. The 2012 legislation followed from a Scottish Law Commission report on the conversion of long leases. Research undertaken by the SLC, the views of stakeholders and human rights considerations all played an important part in the decision to choose the 100-year period. It was concluded that, when the remaining term of the lease drops below 100 years, the landlord can be considered to have an economic interest in the property, with such interest becoming more significant the nearer the lease is to its termination.

Accordingly, the then Scottish Government took the view that converting a long lease to ownership where there was a minimum of 100 years left to run in the lease would strike the right balance and ensure that everyone’s interests were protected, including the property rights of landlords under article 1, protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights. I note that no new research or evidence has been presented to the Parliament or the Scottish Government to justify the changes that Mr Greer has proposed.

I appreciate that the member’s position is based on constituency cases, which he mentioned in his opening remarks. As I have stated, which I think is exceptionally important, the work that was undertaken by the SLC and the views of stakeholders, as well as the human rights considerations, led to the 100-year period being chosen. I am afraid that, despite the constituency cases that Mr Greer raised with me in the run-up to today’s meeting, I still feel that the correct balance was reached as a result of the work that was undertaken for the 2012 legislation.

There are a number of policy gaps in the amendments and a lot of the detail about how the provisions that they would introduce would work would be left to regulations. Leaving aside the fact that the regulation-making powers are unlikely to be sufficient in that regard, I wish to make a point about the level of compensatory payments to be made to the landlord by the tenant. The calculation to determine the amount to be paid would be set out in regulations but, given what I have said about human rights considerations, the level of the payments is likely to be high, and it would be significantly higher the closer the lease is to the termination date. That might deter tenants from applying to convert their lease, thereby undermining what appears to be the principal aim of Mr Greer’s amendments.

Finally, I point out that there is currently nothing in law that prevents a tenant from approaching their landlord to privately arrange the conversion of their lease to ownership in the circumstances that the amendments seek to address. I therefore urge the member not to press the amendments, and, should he do so, I ask the committee not to support them.

We are committed to making progress on the issues that have been raised by mobile home site residents, and I support the work that Murdo Fraser has been undertaking with them. The Minister for Housing has taken action following Mr Fraser’s members’ business debate in February, including by writing to Ofgem, to the UK Minister for Services, Small Business and Exports, and to local authorities. I hope that the post-implementation review of mobile home site licensing that is to be carried out before the end of this parliamentary session will address some systemic issues.

Amendment 386, in the name of Paul McLennan, will align the definition of the consumer prices index that is used in the mobile homes provisions in the bill with that used in the rent control provisions. The new definition does not change the substance of what was in the previous definition.

I fully support the principle of amendments 21 and 23 on adaptations, that disabled people should be supported regardless of their housing circumstances. However, the amendments are not necessary, as there is already provision in law for that purpose. The Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 established arrangements for the delivery of support for disabled people who require adaptations and who either own or privately rent their homes. Mobile homes, caravans and park homes are not covered by that legislation, but all local authorities have a duty to ensure that the needs of disabled or chronically ill residents are met, whatever their housing circumstances, and to offer support under the provisions of the Chronically Sick And Disabled Persons (Scotland) Act 1972 and the Equality Act 2010.

Since the members’ business debate, my officials have had further engagement with some local authorities that shows that there are differing levels of understanding of the basis of supporting park home residents. The Minister for Housing wrote to council leaders and heads of housing on 22 April to confirm the basis for adaptation of mobile homes in housing legislation and the other legislation that I have mentioned.

Furthermore, we plan to undertake a review of the current housing adaptation system that will make recommendations on how best to improve and streamline the system and better target resources. The scope of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 will be part of the review, so issues relating to adaptations to park and mobile homes will be considered. I have already referred to the review in previous groups.

Amendment 22 is intended to improve access to justice for residents of mobile homes by moving cases from the courts to the First-tier Tribunal. I support the principle of the amendment, but lodging it at this point is premature. The Mobile Homes Act 1983 is complex. It covers Gypsy Traveller sites, so there are equality considerations. Time is needed for effective consultation and policy making to identify how the rights and responsibilities of residents and site owners can best be upheld. After discussion with Mr Fraser, the Minister for Housing and I are therefore committing to consult on the policy that amendment 22 would implement, and we aim to do so before the end of the current parliamentary session, resources permitting.

I ask Murdo Fraser not to move his amendments in this group. If amendments 21 to 23 are moved, I urge the committee not to support them.

I move amendment 386.

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.