Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, convener and members of the committee, and good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to set out the vision for the Housing (Scotland) Bill and, in particular, how the measures can help us to build on our existing protections to deliver a private rented sector that works for tenants and landlords, and plays a part in eradicating child poverty.

I understand that the committee intends to provide its stage 1 report in the coming weeks, and I am grateful for your time today. In my evidence to the Social Justice and Social Security Committee on 27 June and 5 September, I highlighted key measures in parts 5 and 6 of the bill on homelessness prevention duties, domestic abuse and fuel poverty. In this meeting, I will focus on the actions that we are taking on other measures in parts 1 to 4 of the bill, such as rent control; increased eviction protection; rights for tenants to request a pet and not be unreasonably refused; and rights for private tenants to make changes to a rented home.

The legislation as introduced builds on the strong housing rights that already exist for people in Scotland, with its renewed focus on supporting tenancies to be sustained, which in turn will lead to less pressure on housing supply. The package of reforms as set out in the bill are, therefore, focused on helping to ensure that people have a safe, secure and affordable place to live. The measures in the bill introduce changes that are positive for both tenants and responsible landlords—for example, by reforming how civil damages for unlawful eviction are calculated; enabling unclaimed tenancy deposit funds to be used for the benefit of private rented sector tenants; and providing a mechanism for joint tenants to end a tenancy in cases when there is no mutual agreement. Due to time constraints, I will not talk about those and the other issues in the bill in detail, however, I am happy to answer any questions that the committee has.

I will turn first to rent control. As I set out in my letter to the committee, I remain committed to delivering our vision for a fairer, well-managed private rented sector that works in the interests of tenants and landlords, and supports on-going investment in rented housing. The bill as introduced sets out the framework for how rent control will be delivered, and I have continued to listen to stakeholders’ views on the benefits of providing more clarity on how rent control would apply. In particular, we have considered the need to set out how rent increases will be capped in areas in which rent controls will apply. To support that, I will lodge amendments at stage 2 that set out how the rent cap will apply in rent control areas. That will provide clarity for all, including tenants, landlords and investors. It will build on the provisions that are already set out in the bill to deliver rent controls, which will involve the designation of rent control areas on a geographically specific basis, supported by a local assessment process, which will be carried out by local authorities. That is to ensure that measures can be tailored to the prevailing rent conditions in a localised area and respond to changing circumstances.

Rent control areas will be designated through affirmative regulations with a requirement for consultation ahead of the regulations being laid. The bill already sets out that a rent control area can be designated only when it is necessary and proportionate for the purpose of protecting the social and economic interests of tenants in that area, and when it is a necessary and proportionate control of a landlord’s use of their property in that area. Furthermore, a rent control area can be designated for only a fixed time period of five years. Redesignation beyond the set period would require to be on the basis that further assessment shows that that would be required. The bill also allows ministers to provide for circumstances in which the rent cap does not apply or in which rent may increase by more than the rent cap.

Secondly, the bill places duties on the tribunal and courts to consider whether there should be a delay to the enforcement of an eviction. That action responds to concerns about the potential negative impact of the timing of an enforcement of an eviction on tenants and the fact that there are certain circumstances and times of year during which being evicted can be particularly problematic. The bill sets out specific factors that the tribunal and courts may take into account when deciding whether it is reasonable to delay an enforcement, such as seasonal pressures, periods of religious significance, exam periods, or where more time is required to access suitable alternative accommodation. The measures recognise that there are certain types of eviction where it would rarely be reasonable for the enforcement to be delayed. Therefore, the bill includes exemptions from the duty for certain repossession grounds such as antisocial conduct, criminal convictions, domestic abuse and vacant and abandoned properties.

Finally, on personalisation and keeping a pet, the bill also introduces a statutory framework for private residential tenants to make certain changes to their home and to keep a pet. There will be a right for tenants, including social tenants, to ask to keep a pet and not be unreasonably refused.

With regard to personalising a rented home, there will be different categories of change. Category 1 changes will not require a tenant to request permission for a change; category 2 changes must be requested, but cannot be unreasonably refused by a landlord. Details of the types of changes under each category will be set out in secondary legislation and will be subject to further consultation.

In relation to personalisation and pets, the bill sets clear timescales for requests to make changes, and regulates how disputes will be managed; for private rented sector cases, that will be done through the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland.

Overall, the measures in the bill are part of our vision for the rented sector in Scotland—we aim to improve affordability and strengthen tenants’ rights, while helping to sustain tenancies for the benefit of tenants and landlords.

I continue to listen to the information that stakeholders share and I will bring forward the amendments at stage 2 that I referred to, once we have had the opportunity to consider in further detail how the options will take account of the interests of tenants and landlords, while also encouraging investment.

My officials and I look forward to answering any questions that members might have on these parts of the bill.

It is a case of trying to strike a balance. I think that what is proposed puts an additional onus on landlords, but we also need to raise awareness of what is there for tenants. I mentioned the fact that, in a rent control area, landlords have to provide specified information to a tenant at the start of the tenancy. There is an onus on landlords to do that. We will continue to discuss that with tenants, but it is a case of striking a balance.

Of course. Obviously, those are discussions that I have in my day-to-day role and not just on the bill, but I appreciate your point.

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.

I was going to mention that. Of course, we would be happy to take part in that.

I am sorry, but I will make another point.

One of the key things—which Mr Griffin knows about—is that I will be having discussions: I think that we have a note out to Mr Griffin, Mr Briggs and others about discussing the bill. When we talked about the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Bill, one of the key things for me was about making sure that it was as collaborative as possible. I really want to see that approach again. I will be talking to Mr Griffin, Mr Briggs and other party spokespeople about that. It will be about saying, “Okay, where do you see this going?”. Ultimately, the bill has to get through Parliament as well. It is about discussing it and trying to be as collaborative as possible.

I am happy to meet Mr Griffin and Mr Briggs. I think that there are already letters out and meetings planned within the next few weeks to discuss that. Again, that is open to any member who wants to discuss the bill with me; I am happy to discuss it with them.

I am sorry: I meant Charlotte McHaffie. The timing is still to be confirmed, but it is important that we learn the lessons. Covid was a challenge that we did not expect at the time, obviously, and we had to deal with it. We need to consider the issue, Mr Coffey, because it is an important part of the refreshed look at the bill. At that time, when the emergency legislation was brought in, we knew that there were lessons to learn. I will bring Charlotte in on that point.

I will bring in Charlotte McHaffie in a second.

I think that the tribunals service allows both tenants and landlords to have representation, which can come from a friend, a family member or someone from the third sector. I am aware of cases in which the likes of Shelter have taken part. Charlotte might want to touch on that.

This might relate to the discussion about tenants’ rights and whether they are aware of what is available to them. That goes back to what Ms Roddick asked about whether we should ensure that tenants are aware of their rights. Charlotte may want to touch on that. She can correct me if I am wrong, but I think that they have the ability to do that. We will consider how to support tenants who go to the tribunal so that they are aware of that right, but I think that that right is available.

From my experience as a councillor I say that support tends primarily to come from Shelter or other third sector organisations. A case would have to be incredibly complex to go to court. I found in almost all circumstances that Shelter had the expertise to help people.

On the point about reasonableness, the landlord would have to say what the grounds or reasons were for saying no. There is a balance, and that will be fleshed out in the detailed regulations. You are right that it is about striking that balance, but the landlord would have to give reasonable grounds for saying no.