Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank Meghan Gallacher for the conversations that we have had, in particular in the past couple of days but also prior to that. As I said earlier, the only reason for my not supporting amendment 520 at this point is that, as a Government minister, I feel that it is important to give landlords the opportunity to come forward, should they have grave concerns about the proposals. If they do not, or do not do so in a way that convinces me or Ms Gallacher, I will be happy to support her amendment at stage 3. I have my own views about whether I will be convinced, but I want to give people the opportunity to come forward and express their concerns. However, I am very sympathetic to where Meghan Gallacher is coming from with her amendments.

Thank you, convener, and good morning. Apologies, but I, too, will not be brief, given the number of members’ amendments in this group. However, I can assure you that this will be the largest speaking note.

I share the intention behind many of the amendments in this group to increase eviction protections in certain circumstances and to strengthen existing penalties where an unlawful eviction or wrongful termination occurs. However, I cannot support them, for the reasons that I will set out. Amendments 119 and 120, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, would prevent private landlords from applying to the tribunal to evict in cases where a tenant or a member of the tenant’s household has a terminal illness. I am very sympathetic to the outcomes that those amendments are seeking to achieve. However, they do not strike the right balance between protection for tenants and the rights of landlords. The amendments would prevent a landlord from recovering a property, regardless of the circumstances, and for an indeterminate period, including where those circumstances relate to their own health or ability to continue as a landlord. We have strong existing protections from unfair eviction, and the tribunal must consider all circumstances in determining whether it would be reasonable to grant an eviction. That would include where a person has a terminal illness.

Sections 24 to 27 of the bill will further strengthen those protections, ensuring that, when an eviction is granted, the tribunal must consider whether there should be a delay to the enforcement of the eviction. That will increase protection for all tenants, including those with a terminal illness, and it will ensure that the rights of tenants and landlords can be appropriately balanced.

However, I appreciate where Meghan Gallacher is coming from. She spoke earlier about bringing compassion to the bill and I assure her that I share that determination. I thank her for the genuinely useful and meaningful conversations that she and I have had over the past few weeks, and I also thank the Marie Curie charity for the direct discussions that we have had.

I accept Meghan Gallacher’s point that the ending of a tenancy via an eviction is exceptionally difficult and that people should be treated sympathetically and provided with support and advice. That will particularly be the case for those with a terminal illness. I am therefore keen to develop guidance for private landlords that will set out good practice in this area. I will seek input from organisations that support those who are facing terminal illness, such as Marie Curie, to ensure that tenants are supported as early as possible and to avoid the ending of a tenancy in eviction whenever possible. I hope that Meghan Gallacher will be able to contribute to those conversations and meetings.

Meghan Gallacher also mentioned amendments on succession, which I believe are in a later group. Without spoiling the surprises that are in my speaking notes for group 22, I am also keen to work with her on many aspects that relate to that group.

Amendments 122 to 129, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, would add terminal illness as a specific consideration for the courts or the tribunal when exercising the new duties to consider a delay to the enforcement of an eviction. Although the bill will allow the courts or the tribunal to take terminal illness into account, I understand the desire to highlight this specific issue. However, further consideration is needed on how best to address it in legislation. I am happy to work with Meghan Gallacher to lodge amendments at stage 3 to ensure that terminal illness is added to the list of things to be taken into account. On that basis, I ask her not to move those amendments and to instead work with me ahead of stage 3.

Amendment 491, in the name of Fulton MacGregor, would amend the new duty to consider a delay to the enforcement of an eviction to include a consideration of the detrimental impact it could have on a landlord that is a company or a business. I confirm that, although the bill refers to a specific number of factors, that is a non-exhaustive list and the tribunal may take all circumstances into account. The impact on the landlord, regardless of whether it is an individual, a business or another entity, will be a key factor in determining whether it is reasonable to delay. The amendment is therefore not necessary and I ask Fulton MacGregor not to move it.

Amendments 163 to 167, in the name of Edward Mountain, would prevent the tribunal and courts from ordering a delay to an eviction of longer than three months. I understand that those amendments respond to concerns from landlords about the length of any delay. However, I do not think that it is appropriate to restrict the discretion of the tribunal and courts. There are also issues with the drafting of the amendments that mean that, in practice, there could be no delay, or a minimum delay, which would undermine the purpose of the measures in the bill. I ask Edward Mountain not to move those amendments.

Amendment 452, in the name of Willie Rennie, and amendment 487, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, would create further exceptions to the duty to consider a delay when the property is needed for religious purposes and when

“the landlord is the Church of Scotland”.

I recognise the concerns that have prompted those amendments. However, I am not persuaded that an exemption is appropriate. Existing exemptions to the duty reflect areas in which it would rarely be reasonable to delay enforcement and mainly relate to the conduct of the tenant. For all other repossession grounds, the tribunal is the correct place to balance the rights of tenants and landlords. The type of landlord or the purpose for which the property will be used do not, in and of themselves, merit an exemption, particularly when such an exemption would remove the protection that the measures in the bill are intended to provide for tenants.

The requirement on the tribunal to take all the circumstances into account, including for the landlord, will ensure that a delay to an enforcement is only ordered when it is reasonable to do so. That will protect the interests of landlords as well as tenants. I therefore ask Willie Rennie and Meghan Gallacher not to move those amendments.

I agree. The conversations that I have had directly with Emma Roddick on the issue have absolutely strengthened my opinion that there can be—indeed, in some circumstances, there has been—a misuse of that ground. That is why the existing penalties are very strong, but, regardless of that, I think that it still can happen. One aspect of that might be the lack of monitoring, which is why I am keen that that is looked at in the review of repossessions. As with other aspects of the bill, we must not just be satisfied that something is in the legislation if it is not being used to the benefit of the tenant or, in some circumstances, the benefit of the landlord; we must look at why those things are still happening. I am sure that monitoring is one of the areas that will come up in the review of repossession grounds.

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.