Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I thank Mr Halcro Johnston for lodging his amendments, because they give me the opportunity to restate the Government’s position on the matter, as set out in the regulations that came before the Parliament very recently.

As I have said, the Government absolutely recognises the need for secondary heating systems, particularly but not only in rural and island communities. The reason for not supporting the amendments is that they are unnecessary—it is not a reflection of any change in or diminution of the Government’s policy in that area. I absolutely reassure Mr Halcro Johnston on that point.

Amendments 470 to 473, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, would require Scottish ministers, in summary, to publish an accessible homes standard, which would include building and design standards for new-build homes. The amendments would also oblige ministers to publish guidance on the design of housing for varying needs; those obligations would require to be met within two years of commencement, and regular review would be required thereafter.

I understand and fully support Ms Duncan-Glancy’s desire to ensure the accessibility and adaptability of Scotland’s homes. Indeed, during the second half of 2023, we consulted on proposals to do just that. Homes have never simply been bricks and mortar; good housing and homes that support our health, wellbeing, life chances and job prospects are integral. Everyone should have a home that brings them those chances and opportunities.

The housing to 2040 strategy committed to developing and introducing an all-tenure Scottish accessible homes standard. We also reaffirmed, within that strategy, our commitment to review the “Housing for Varying Needs” design guide, which, although well regarded and still considered to be a good design benchmark, was produced in 1998. We recognise the urgency of that work, and we remain committed to introducing those changes. The analysis of the responses to the consultation on those matters is now being considered, and it will help inform our next steps.

As a result, the inclusion of amendments 470 and 473 would be premature in advance of full consideration of the feedback from the many respondents who have submitted their views. I assure Ms Duncan-Glancy that, although I oppose her amendments, it is not because the Scottish Government is not supportive of the principles behind them but because we are giving detailed consideration to the consultation feedback at this point. I assure Ms Duncan-Glancy that that important work will not be delayed, because of our work on the housing emergency, for example, and I look forward to engaging the member as we progress matters.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 551 and 561 would oblige Scottish ministers to provide a scheme for adaptations to housing that are intended to improve accessibility. The 2006 act already provides a right for a private tenant to carry out work on their house in order to make it

“suitable for the accommodation, welfare or employment of any disabled person”

who lives there. As the legislative basis for adaptations provision already exists, the amendments are not necessary and, indeed, risk creating a confusing regulatory landscape. Furthermore, we plan to undertake a review of the current housing adaptations system, which will make recommendations on how best to improve and streamline that system and how to target resources better. As the scope of the coverage of the 2006 act will be part of that review, I consider the amendments not to be necessary and therefore cannot support them.

In closing, having addressed all the amendments in the group, I ask the committee to vote for amendment 231, in Paul McLennan’s name, and I ask other members with amendments in the group not to move or press them. If those amendments are moved or pressed, I ask the committee not to vote for them, for the reasons that I have laid out.

Mr Sweeney raised that with me in our discussions. Given that it is only a few days since we had that discussion, I have not had time to take advice on the particular details, but I reassure him that I am seeking further advice to see whether we could work together on something for stage 3. I will be happy to get back to the member once I have received that advice.

As are the members who lodged the amendments in this group, the Government is determined to bring forward a system of rent control that supports the stabilisation of rents for tenants while ensuring that there is a balanced approach that provides appropriate protection for the property rights of landlords and supports investment in the development of rented homes. Although some amendments do not quite strike the balance that is needed, I absolutely recognise the importance of the issues that have been raised—in particular, those that have been raised by Maggie Chapman and Emma Roddick—about the need for tenants to understand their rights and be able to enact those should they so wish. I understand in particular the importance of allowing sufficient time for tenants to challenge a rent increase that they feel is not in line with the rules, as Emma Roddick set out.

That is why we lodged Government amendments 399 and 400, in the name of Paul McLennan, which would affect tenants in properties that are not covered by rent control. Those amendments would increase from 21 days to 30 days the period during which a tenant in an area that is not rent controlled or in an exempt property can refer a proposed increase to the rent officer. The amendments are designed to assist tenants to make use of their rights to challenge a rent increase that they see as excessive. I consider that extending the window to 30 days is a proportionate means of achieving that.

I turn to the amendments that have been lodged by members.

Emma Roddick and Maggie Chapman have set out very strong points on that.

Amendment 138, in the name of Emma Roddick, and amendments 161, 162, 201 and 202, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would extend the length of the period in which a tenant can challenge a rent increase notice. Amendment 138 would give the tenant up to 42 days to notify the landlord that they intend to refer a rent increase to the rent officer, and amendments 161 and 162 would give the tenant up to one year to notify the landlord of an intended referral to the rent officer or tribunal. Amendments 201 and 202 would give the tenant another year to make a referral.

If some of those amendments are agreed to, the tenant would have up to two years to challenge a rent increase notice. That would leave landlords and tenants facing a long period of uncertainty regarding the rent that is applied. Although I agree with the principle that tenants should have sufficient time to challenge an increase, extending the period beyond the current combined period of 63 days could create significant uncertainty for landlords and tenants.

However, I recognise the concerns that members have raised, and I accept that we have perhaps not quite got that balance correct yet, as Emma Roddick has set out. I am happy to discuss with members what might be necessary to ensure that tenants have enough time to challenge the increase but in a way that does not create undue uncertainty for tenants and landlords. Given the Government’s willingness to work through that process with Ms Roddick and Ms Chapman, I ask them not to move their amendments.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 218, 219 and 228 would change the provisions that regulate how frequently the rent may be increased for a property in a rent control area. Where a property in a rent control area is not a previously let property, it is not subject to the rent cap at the start of the tenancy. For those tenancies, the landlord is prevented from increasing the rent in the first 12 months.

The bill sets out a power for ministers to prescribe circumstances in which increases in the first 12 months would be permitted. Amendments 218, 219 and 228 would expand that power to prescribe the circumstances in which the landlord could increase the rent more frequently than once a year, including in circumstances that are considered to be an emergency. The amendments could result in some tenants in a rent control area being subjected to more rent increases more frequently than other tenants. I consider that allowing more frequent rent increases would undermine the intention of the bill’s rent control measures. I therefore urge Rachael Hamilton, or Alexander Stewart on her behalf, not to press amendment 218 or move amendments 219 and 228. If he does so, I urge members not to support them.

Amendment 565, in the name of Mark Griffin, would disapply the rules on rent control for any tenancy in which the landlord is a registered social landlord, a subsidiary of the registered social landlord or any one of three named corporate bodies. I very much recognise that the intention is to exempt mid-market rents, which we have spoken about in relation to amendments in previous groups. Although I acknowledge the need to protect the delivery of such tenancies, that is best done through the consultation that we have previously discussed in committee. For that reason, I cannot support Mr Griffin’s amendment 565, but I encourage the mid-market rent providers to make that exact point in the consultation, because Mr Griffin’s points require further airing during that process.

Absolutely. Mid-market rent and build to rent are among the areas of key focus for other stakeholders, in particular tenants and their representatives, that we have discussed. I assure Meghan Gallacher that work to encourage those exact points to be made is on-going.

Amendment 220, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, would require that rent increase notices for private residential tenancies in rent control areas set out the reasons for the proposed rent increase. It is not clear what benefit that would provide for tenants. Under the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016, a tenant with a private residential tenancy can refer a proposed rent increase to a rent officer for adjudication, and the rent officer will determine the rent with reference to the factors that are set out in the relevant sections of the act. Those factors do not include consideration of the reason for the rent increase.

I am of the view that requiring all landlords with private residential tenancies to provide that information to tenants when increasing the rent would be an unnecessary intrusion into the landlord’s privacy with no obvious benefit to tenants, and there would clearly be an increase in the bureaucracy and requirements for private landlords. In addition, there would be significant resource implications in relation to the administration of such information. I urge her not to move the amendment.

Amendments 494 to 496, in the name of Maggie Chapman, seek to introduce an adjudication process that would include consideration of market rents and property quality when a tenant in a rent control area challenges an increase. Currently, rent increases in rent control areas will be limited in line with the cap, and the reference in the bill to the rent officer is to confirm that that is the case. Ms Chapman’s amendments 497 to 499 are similar to amendments 494 to 496 but would apply in cases in which a landlord or a tenant requests a review of a rent officer’s determination of a proposed increase.

The amendments effectively seek to override the rent cap and would instead create a subjective process that goes beyond the rent cap and the current process of applying open market rent for properties outwith rent control areas. The current proposals are the correct approach and provide clarity to investors and landlords, and I therefore cannot support the amendments.

I thank all members who have lodged amendments in the group for the discussions that I have had with them in the run-up to today, which have informed the Government’s thinking greatly. I apologise in advance for the length of my speaking note on the group, but it covers a number of amendments that have been lodged by different members, so I ask colleagues to bear with me.

I will first address amendment 231, in the name of Paul McLennan, which will enable Awaab’s law to be introduced in Scotland. I will also comment on the related amendments that have been lodged by Graham Simpson and Emma Roddick.

The Scottish Government is committed to delivering Awaab’s law in Scotland, and I consider that amendment 231, coupled with the use of powers in existing legislation to make provision for the private sector, will achieve that aim. The amendment will enable the Government to implement the equivalent of Awaab’s law in Scotland in the social rented sector, so that social landlords must deal with issues such as damp and mould in tenants’ homes in a timely manner. The amendment will expand existing powers in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 to give ministers the ability to impose timeframes on social landlords to investigate disrepair and commence repairs.

For context, I note that Awaab’s law in England will have 28 defined hazards. The UK Government has been taking a phased approach since Awaab’s law was introduced, in July 2023. We want to ensure that landlords and tenants are clear about their respective rights and duties, which is why we will have further engagement with stakeholders later this year to fully understand the types of repairs that should be included, as well as appropriate timescales for investigating and commencing those repairs. Members have rightly referred to damp and mould, but other hazards will also be addressed in the consultation.

As well as placing requirements on social landlords, Scottish ministers are committed to bringing forward equivalent requirements in the private rented sector after further consultation. Those can be delivered under existing powers via the repairing standard in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006, which is why no similar amendment has been lodged for the private rented sector. However, I stress that we are consulting not on the “if” but on the “how”, as per social rented sector amendments that we will then take forward.

The issues that have arisen in England, which have been raised in the consultation, demonstrate why consultation is required. It is an exceptionally complex situation. To take just one issue, we want to make sure that the timescales are as stringent as possible but we do not want to set unrealistic timetables that a good landlord would be genuinely unable to meet. If you will forgive me, Maggie, I hope that the rest of my speaking note will deal with some of the details. If it does not, I will certainly be happy to discuss the matter further with you.

I cannot support the related amendments that have been lodged by Graham Simpson and Emma Roddick. Mr Simpson’s amendment 231A would change amendment 231 so that the power to make regulations would become a duty. That would require the Scottish ministers to make regulations on every issue in section 27(3) of the 2001 act, although it may be necessary to cover only some of those issues. A technical point is that it is not entirely within the gift of Scottish ministers to make regulations that are subject to the affirmative procedure, as those regulations first have to be approved by the Parliament.

Mr Simpson’s amendment 231B is already catered for by amendment 231, which enables provisions to be made in connection with the right of a tenant to have qualifying repairs carried out, including provision that may require the inspection and approval of any repairs to address issues relating to damp or mould. However, from my conversations with Mr Simpson—for which I thank him—I appreciate that he remains concerned that there is still a gap in the Government’s amendments. I am convinced that there is not, but I believe that there is room for discussion, because he and I are very much on the same page of wanting to make sure that the system is as robust as possible. I am therefore happy to work with him in the run-up to stage 3 if I cannot convince him that no change is required.

Amendment 443, in the name of Graham Simpson, would oblige the Scottish ministers to lay draft regulations under section 27 of the 2001 act within six months of amendment 231 coming into force. That would remove Scottish ministers’ discretion, thereby restricting our ability to consult meaningfully with stakeholders and engage with the UK Government. I believe that there would be a great danger of making poor regulations as a result of a lack of meaningful and robust consultation.

Amendments 444 and 446, in the name of Graham Simpson, would oblige the Scottish ministers to make regulations to ensure that, in relation to damp or mould, private landlords would be under repairing obligations equivalent to those of social landlords. Emma Roddick’s amendment 444A would require those regulations to include a process whereby a private landlord would have to make a compensatory payment to tenants if they had failed to meet their repairing obligations. Amendments 444, 444A and 446 are not necessary, as powers in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 and the 2006 act already enable existing private sector standards to be modified, enabling the introduction of Awaab’s law. The repairing standard can already be enforced via a rent relief order, which compensates a tenant with a rent reduction if their house fails the repairing standards.