Seòmar agus comataidhean

Can you ask that again, so that I am clear in my mind?

As I mentioned, a new deal for tenants is part of our wider strategy. A key thing from that is the learning from coronavirus. As has been talked about, we are committed to a review. I ask Catriona MacKean to come in on that.

The tribunal is really important. I will touch on that in a wee second.

I will maybe bring in Charlotte McHaffie to talk about ethics. One key point is that the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service is a separate body. Obviously, we have on-going discussions about case numbers, staffing numbers and costs, and we have raised concerns about the time that the process has been taking, but the service is a separate body and the tribunal is a judicial decision maker, so we cannot interfere in that. It is all about trying to strike the right balance. The tribunal sits on its own.

Charlotte might want to touch on whether the ethics point has been discussed. As Mr Coffey will know, there are discussions between officials and the tribunals service, but the tribunal sits separately. Charlotte—do you want to add anything?

Just before Craig comes in, I will say that one of the key things that the tribunal offers is a less adversarial approach. Such discussions can, by their nature, be tricky, as you can appreciate. We should recognise the work that the tribunal does, in which it tries to promote a less adversarial approach in what can be really difficult discussions.

I will bring in Craig McGuffie on the point that Charlotte McHaffie made.

I will bring in Charlotte McHaffie in a wee second. I am happy to pick that up later if there is further detail on that, or if there is a specific case. Charlotte might want to come in on that specific point, because we hear about that happening occasionally.

That is fine by me.

Yes, you are right: that is an issue in relation to adaptations. One aspect is about ensuring that local authorities are more proactively aware of the adaptations that are required. There will be cases in which a person who is coming home from hospital needs adaptations to be made. There is guidance to encourage landlords to consider that and to move as quickly as possible. I do not see a situation in which a landlord would say no, unless there are real technical issues, such as in relation to changes involving heavy lifting gear. There is support and guidance in order to try to provide changes as quickly as we possibly can, which is really important.

I touched on category 1 and category 2 changes. It depends—if the adaptation involves a couple of handrails, I would not imagine that that would be an issue. If it involved lifting gear going in, for example, that might impact on the property, so I imagine that there would be discussions at an early stage about the technical stuff. However, there is support and guidance to encourage landlords to be as flexible as possible in that period, particularly in respect of the issues that you raise. I am sure that most landlords would be sympathetic, but it would depend on the level of adaptation.

Marie Curie has mentioned that point in recent discussions. I expect to get some correspondence about that matter, if it has not already come in. That suggestion is something that we could consider.

I have also had discussions with MND Scotland and Marie Curie about getting in place a process to deal with adaptations, because sometimes a situation is life threatening. In some cases, such as with cancer or motor neurone disease, things can happen very quickly. Therefore, it is important to get in place a structure to ensure that matters are dealt with. For example, we have been speaking to the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers about local authorities having a process to ensure that those people are prioritised. For the PRS sector, again, we should have a process in place for people who are terminally ill.

I fully expect that MND Scotland and Marie Curie will send in something in writing, and we would look at that sympathetically, because we are trying to get people in as comfortable a position as possible. As I said, both MND Scotland and Marie Curie have raised the matter in previous discussions, but we have not received anything yet, as far as I am aware.

I will talk about the specifics of the bill. It is important to recognise the private rented sector—I will touch on MMR and BTR in a wee second.

First, the private rented sector is important. We have had discussions with the City of Edinburgh Council and Glasgow City Council and it is fair to say both councils know that they need to work more closely with the PRS in a strategic approach. I would like and would encourage deeper discussions on the role of the PRS in Edinburgh, Glasgow and other parts of Scotland and for that to be part of local housing strategies, and we have written to local authorities about that.

The second consideration is how we ensure that the sector grows, and that needs to be recognised in the bill. The bill tries to strike a balance between what is proposed for rent control and the need to bring in investment. Investment might look like a landlord who currently owns one property buying another; or someone who owns five or 10 properties looking at doubling up. I have said to the SAL that I want to see people coming back into the sector. The latest data shows that numbers have slightly increased. Anecdotally, having spoken to the councils in Edinburgh and Glasgow, I know that they have found that landlords who own single properties are selling up but they are selling those properties to landlords who have a bigger portfolio, such as five, 10 or 15 properties. The number of landlords is probably decreasing and the number of properties in the sector is slightly increasing. At the moment, there is a slight lag, but that is the data that is coming through on that. That is recognised.

There are a couple of other things. If a local authority says that it has a requirement for rent controls and comes to ministers, there is also the opportunity to review the matter then. If there is a change in circumstance, for example, rent controls can be revoked. It is not that they are in place for five years and cannot move. There is an opportunity to discuss them and to have flexibility.

One question is whether we can give that clarity through rent controls. If they are a local authority’s responsibility, there is flexibility to change them if circumstances change. However, we have to balance how we get into MMR and BTR.

Obviously, we recognise that MMR—housing associations—is an important part of the sector. In Glasgow, for example, because the council is a non-stockholding authority, RSLs have a really important part in how MMR stock is developed. Again, we have listened to what Glasgow City Council is saying and we will consider that. It is the same with Edinburgh. There are a number of housing models, not just RSLs. The question is how they deliver.

There is that wider discussion. Local housing allowance obviously has a part to play in the matter. There have been discussions with the UK Government previously and there are discussions now about what the role of LHA is. That is an important part of the matter.

We are trying to encourage BTR. We have churn in properties in Edinburgh and Glasgow. That is turning round. We also need to recognise not just the role of BTR in housing—it is important because it increases supply—but its role in bringing investment into Scotland and in construction jobs, as well as the gross value added that it brings into Scotland.

We have picked up on the importance of those things in the discussions about BTR and MMR that we have had with stakeholders and with individual landlords through the Scottish Association of Landlords, for example. On the other hand, we have to make sure that rent controls are there to protect people who need them. The challenge for me with the bill is in striking the right balance. I think that we are moving in the right direction, and I appreciate the point that you make about it being a framework bill.

I am happy to come back to the convener to discuss amendments and any changes in detail when those come through, but it is important to get the right balance. It is a tough ask in a complex market. It is not that one size fits all, but that is what we hope to achieve. I am happy to come back to the committee at the appropriate stage to discuss those matters.

When I spoke to the Social Justice and Social Security Committee about homelessness prevention, we touched on the fact that we contacted local authorities to ask about costs and they gave their best estimates at that time. Colleagues and local authorities have had detailed discussions about what implementation will look like and when the measures will be phased in. That is the important part. The focus of that is not to have additional resource implications for local authorities—I think that Ms Gosal mentioned that. Our discussions with local authorities include asking what additional resources would be required, including for data collection, and discussions are on-going. The financial memorandum provides an estimate, and an updated memorandum will be provided at the end of stage 2.

It is safe to say that discussions are on-going. We have to ensure that the resource is in place around homelessness prevention measures and gathering data on rent controls, because we cannot put any additional pressures on local authorities. As I said, there are on-going discussions, and at stage 2 there will be an updated financial memorandum to reflect that. I do not know whether any colleagues want to mention anything in relation to resource discussions.