Official Report 802KB pdf
Item 3 is evidence from the Minister for Housing on the legislative consent memorandum to the Renters’ Rights Bill, which is LCM-S6-49. The minister is joined for this item by Scottish Government officials. Craig Campbell is from housing registers policy and is housing registers and policy casework manager; Laura McMahon is a solicitor in the legal directorate; and Yvette Sheppard is head of the housing legislation and reform unit. Before we begin, I invite the minister to make a brief opening statement.
Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the legislative consent memorandum to the United Kingdom Government’s Renters’ Rights Bill.
The relevant provisions in the bill will prohibit discrimination and restrictions against people with children or people in receipt of benefits. That aligns with the Scottish Government’s work on rented sector reform and will provide an important element of protection to those vulnerable groups in the private rented sector.
As the committee will recall, the provisions on rental discrimination were first introduced by the previous Conservative Government in the Renters’ Reform Bill, which did not pass prior to the UK Parliament being prorogued, following the calling of a general election. Consideration of the associated LCM in the Scottish Parliament was also halted, given that the bill had fallen.
I am pleased that the new UK Government has elected to include rental discrimination provisions in the Renters’ Rights Bill and that those provisions appear to have support from a wide range of political parties and stakeholders.
Although housing is a devolved matter, there are elements in the provisions that fall into the reserved area of financial services. In order to ensure that the full range of protections are able to come into effect in Scotland, the Scottish Government is seeking the Parliament’s consent to the UK Government’s legislating on the devolved area of housing, as set out in the LCM. By proceeding in that manner, we will ensure that the full extent of the provisions will come into effect in Scotland in the same way as they will come into effect in England and Wales.
I and my officials look forward to answering any questions that members may have on the LCM. Thank you.
Thanks very much. We have a few questions on the LCM.
I appreciate your setting out what you hope to achieve by bringing the LCM to Parliament, but I would be interested to hear how you think that the provisions fit into the wider work that the Scottish Government is undertaking on private rented sector reform. Could you give an example of how the provisions might work in practice? For example, if a prospective tenant saw an advert for a let that stated, “No tenants on benefits”, what should they do and what should they expect to happen?
First of all, this falls into broader renters’ rights provisions to increase the rights of renters. For a number of years, we have heard of people being discriminated against because they are on benefits. It is a surprise to lots of us that that has not been legislated against previously. It has been discussed a number of times.
You mentioned advertising, which is important. As I said, the measure falls into legislation to protect vulnerable groups.
There are a number of issues. We will probably come on to whether such discrimination is seen as a civil matter or a criminal matter in Scotland. Like Wales, we have decided to go down the route of making it a criminal matter. Therefore, we would say to people to report a case to Police Scotland and let the police take that up as a criminal offence, as it will be a criminal offence in Scotland if the Parliament consents to the LCM. Certainly, we would hope that people would take a case to the police and that the police would pick it up. The practice is not one that we can continue to see in the UK and in Scotland.
Okay. You may have touched on this, but I asked how the provisions fit into the Scottish Government’s wider work of undertaking reform in the private rented sector. If you could broaden that out a little bit, that would be helpful.
Renters’ rights are one of the key issues in the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which is going through Parliament at the moment, so the provisions fit in with that. The Housing (Scotland) Bill is obviously looking at various other matters, such as rental disputes involving pets and so on. It is important that we have these provisions as part of that. The provisions are very explicit and right in your face, so I think that they give a strong message to people out there who are undertaking the practice that they cannot continue to do so.
Great. Thank you very much. I will now bring in Willie Coffey.
Good morning, minister. I have a couple of questions. The Renters’ Rights Bill sets out that there will be a defence for a prospective landlord to show that the conduct is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Could you give some examples of what that might mean in practice?
I will bring in my legal colleague. Laura, do you want to touch on the specific point about how that would work in practice?
Absolutely, minister. The landlord, or a person purporting to act for the landlord, in that circumstance would, as you say, have to demonstrate that their conduct is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. That is in there to make sure that, if there is a legitimate aim, someone is not convicted of a criminal offence. It could be that a property is not suitable for a certain number of children—a one-bedroom property could be suitable for a mother with a small infant, but not for someone with two teenage children. That is an example of what we envisage.
Who would determine that? Will there be any guidelines in place for a sheriff—if such a case goes before a sheriff? How would the determination as to whether there is a legitimate issue be arrived at?
I suppose that it would be determined at the point when an individual who feels that they have been discriminated against reports that to Police Scotland, which will intake evidence and report to the procurator fiscal. If the fiscal deems that that is the right procedure in the public interest, they would determine proportionateness before bringing proceedings.
Thank you. My other question is about the ability of people to use the new protections.
As you well know, minister, when considering the Housing (Scotland) Bill, the committee heard about issues around how tenants can be made aware of and enabled to exercise and enforce their rights. It sounds as though the same issues might confront us in relation to the Renters’ Rights Bill. How do you see us giving support to tenants who may wish to bring issues forward? What support might they be able to receive?
First of all, important publicity work is required to make tenants aware of the provisions—indeed, not just tenants but landlords. You would hope that the legislation would drive change in the sector anyway and that people would move away from the practice and operate legally, rather than being prosecuted. That is key.
We will obviously use the normal communication channels to make sure that we get that message out there, but we hope that, over a period of time—or very quickly—the legislation would drive the behaviour change that we need to make sure that people do not have to be prosecuted to stop the practice in the first place.
An important part of the discussion that we had about the Housing (Scotland) Bill was about how we get the message out there about what we are trying to do. This is a key part of the broader message.
We will also engage with landlords associations on what they need to do to get the message out. A small number of people is involved, but one is far too many. We will continue to work with tenants and landlords as we push forward with this, and I hope that it becomes part of the legislation.
If convicted, the relevant fine is level 3 on the standard scale, which is about £1,000. Previous private rented housing legislation has increased criminal penalties to encourage compliance. For example, the fine for acting as an unregistered landlord was increased from level 5 on the standard scale to £50,000 in 2011. Is the fine high enough to act as an effective deterrent to such practices, and were other enforcement options considered?
I will bring in colleagues on whether other options were considered. At the moment, I think that £1,000 is sufficient, although we would obviously continue to assess the legislation.
As I said, one of the key things is that the provisions would, I hope, drive change pretty early on, so that we do not have as many convictions as we would otherwise have. Monitoring will be key, as with any legislation.
I do not know whether Craig Campbell or Laura McMahon wants to come in on what options were considered. I am aware that the fine is based on similar punishments that are already in place. We could look at landlord registration, which we have talked about. Does anybody else want to add anything?
I suppose that part of the deterrent is that, because it will be a criminal offence, it would have implications for the fit and proper person test that the landlord would have to satisfy to become a registered landlord. There is the financial deterrent, but there are potential implications for a landlord’s ability to continue to act as a landlord in Scotland.
Was anything else considered when you were looking at enforcement?
Craig Campbell might like to come in, perhaps.
Craig Campbell might be able to give a little bit more information.
When the provisions were first considered, there was consideration of having a civil offence rather than a criminal offence. That is the approach that England is taking, whereas Scotland and Wales have both adopted the criminal offence route. That route is in line with similar legislation in housing law in Scotland—that is why it was decided to have a criminal offence.
I would note, as Laura McMahon noted, that the criminal offence would obviously be a consideration in the fit and proper person test for landlord registration—that is, whether a landlord remained a fit and proper person. That would equally apply to letting agents who are convicted of such an offence.
We will now go online and bring Mark Griffin in.
10:45
I received a submission from Crisis, which argues that the reluctance of some private landlords to let to tenants on benefits stems from the complexity of the benefits system. Do you agree with the Crisis submission? Is there anything that the Government can do to support landlords to be able to navigate the benefits system more effectively and take away that block on letting to tenants who are on benefits?
I will come on to discuss the submission from Crisis, but Mr Griffin makes an important point. In terms of complexity, the benefit system more broadly needs to be simplified. We will continue to discuss that with Crisis.
In terms of its feedback on the LCM, Crisis obviously has front-line experience of the complexity of the benefits system. It is an important point, but it is much broader than this piece of legislation. Simplification of the benefits system is something that we would need to speak to the UK Government about.
Do colleagues have anything else to add on what Crisis said? No?
In that case, I am happy to come back to you on that, Mr Griffin, but I think that the point that Crisis has raised is much broader than just this piece of legislation. We are always discussing the issue in terms of the Housing (Scotland) Bill and where the benefits system fits in, because it can overly complicate things. I am happy to take the point away and come back to you. Maybe we can take it up with Crisis. You have raised a very good point, but it is much broader than this piece of legislation.
Thank you, minister, for being willing to be proactive on that. I now bring in Megan Gallacher.
Good morning, minister and officials. Scottish ministers will have the power to set the commencement date for the proposed changes in the Renters’ Rights Bill. Briefly, can you give the committee an update on the timescale that the Scottish Government is considering?
We are working with the UK and Welsh Governments on the bill because it obviously impacts on us all. We would get royal assent first and then move on to commencement. Mr Coffey touched on the key issue of getting the message out and letting tenants and landlords know about the bill.
I do not whether we have discussed the timescales that the UK and Welsh Governments are talking about, but we are trying to move as soon as possible.
At the moment, we do not have a definite parliamentary timeline for the completion of the bill process. Although the measure is not particularly controversial, there are some on-going discussions about some of the other measures in the bill. Following on from that, we will get an understanding of the timetable and when royal assent is likely to come, as the minister says. We will continue to work with Welsh and UK Government counterparts on an implementation plan.
Obviously, there are benefits to our working in tandem and in lockstep to make sure that the measures come in simultaneously across the devolved Administrations and in the UK. At the moment, there is no definitive date for the measures to come into force, but that will follow royal assent as quickly as possible.
We would be happy to write to the committee once we have an agreed date.
That is very welcome. That concludes our questions. It has been helpful to get a fuller picture of your perspective and how you are working with the Renters’ Rights Bill—I really appreciate that. I will now briefly suspend the meeting to allow for a changeover of witnesses.
10:49 Meeting suspended.Air adhart
Cladding Remediation Programme