Seòmar agus comataidhean

I share your concerns about the impact on SME developers in particular, and that we are potentially pricing them out of the appeals system. I might feel differently if developers were submitting appeals for every application that was refused and if those applications were all being rejected on appeal, but the figures show that more than 50 per cent are approved on appeal. I am worried that the fees could constrain the pipeline of housing delivery at a critical time. It would be right to ask the minister about those concerns.

That is right. I hope that colleagues will bear with me as I cover my amendments and those of two of my colleagues.

Amendment 221 replicates Awaab’s law for RSLs in Scotland and would give ministers the power to create regulations that entitle tenants to have repairs carried out to remedy hazards. Amendment 222 replicates Awaab’s law for private landlords.

I am aware that the Government and I have lodged similar amendments in that area. I am also aware that the legislative landscape in Scotland differs from that in the rest of the UK in relation to the obligations that are placed on social landlords to deal with potentially unsafe homes. My concern is that the repairs that are currently required by policy in Scotland should have the force of primary legislation and that, through regulations, ministers should make clear what an acceptable timescale for repairs is.

I am happy to work with the Government to ensure that stringent and enforceable timescales are set out in legislation. That is also the case for my amendment 222, which seeks to make sure that the obligations on the public sector to ensure that hazards in homes are repaired quickly are placed on landlords in the private sector. That forms part of our commitment to balancing the interests of tenants, who deserve to live in warm, safe and affordable homes, and of their landlords, who should be able to guarantee safe homes that do not put tenants and their children in danger of illness in exchange for a fair rent.

My priority in lodging amendment 222 is to ensure that landlords and housing associations define hazards that are to be fixed in the broadest sense possible, and that those hazards are fixed as quickly as possible. Awaab Ishak’s tragic death should never have happened. Although I appreciate that organisations such as the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations have reassured me that the more stringent policy regime in Scotland makes such a case more unlikely, I am brought cases as an MSP that have too many similarities to Awaab’s for me to be entirely comfortable with the status quo. We have discussed the issue many times. Many MSPs have the same constituency casework relating to damp and mould, and the issue is a huge concern for us.

Given what the cabinet secretary has said, I am satisfied that the Government and I—and, in fact, all members of the committee—are in the same place. I am therefore happy not to move my amendments today on the understanding that there will be further discussions between stages 2 and 3.

However, as the cabinet secretary pointed out, there is a problem between policy intention and delivery. We are still getting cases of horrific damp and mould in properties, which are affecting tenants and their children, and, in response to complaints, they are still often being told that it is their own fault. That is entirely unacceptable, and I absolutely hope that the Government will make good on its commitment to address the issue. On that note, I do not plan to move amendments 221 and 222.

I will comment briefly on amendments 249 and 490 in the name of my colleague Daniel Johnson. Amendment 249 would streamline the process for withholding rent in the event of a failure to remedy serious repairs, including window defects, central heating defects, water ingress and leaks. It provides that, if the First-tier Tribunal has determined that the landlord has failed to comply with the duty to meet the repairing standard, the tenant may withhold rent until remedial works are completed.

That would apply solely to properties to which the repairing standard applies and, therefore, not to Scottish secure tenancies. The amendment also provides that, where the tenant has withheld rent under this section, that is not considered as rent arrears for the purposes of the eviction grounds in schedule 3 of the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016.

I take on board what the cabinet secretary has said. Daniel Johnson has lodged amendments 249 and 490 as probing amendments to get the debate on the record and to get the cabinet secretary’s assurance on that point.

Amendment 490 states:

“An owner or occupier of a property in a tenement building must take steps (including, where necessary, notifying other owners and occupiers) to ensure that utility companies have access to any common part of the tenement building for the purposes of maintenance, repair or installation work.”

The key point here is the installation work. Daniel Johnson wishes to probe the Government and push it to consider the definition of “utilities” and whether it covers telecommunications, as I mentioned in my intervention on the cabinet secretary earlier. We have been approached by BT Openreach, which has a real concern that owner-occupiers and tenants who live in tenemented buildings are at real risk of missing out on the superfast broadband roll-out due to the restriction on access to carry out installations in common areas of tenement buildings.

I am reassured by the Government’s response that it will look at the issue more closely. I recommend that the Government starts a discussion with Openreach to see whether there is a way to reassure the organisation that there will not be a barrier to the roll-out of superfast broadband, particularly to tenemented buildings and buildings that share common areas.

My real hand.

For

Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

Against

Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

I keep sticking up a digital hand and not remembering to lower it.

Amendment 501 and consequential amendment 500 would exempt registered social landlords and their subsidiaries from the restriction on rent frequency increases during the first 12 months of a tenancy, regardless of when the tenancy began. The amendments are a practical move, which would allow for easier administration of housing association tenancies. If housing associations were required to set an individual rent rather than setting all mid-market rents once a year, different tenants could potentially be charged different rents, despite living in the exact same property in the exact same area, because prevailing costs and inflation rates would vary, depending on the time that the decision was made.

My amendments speak to the fact that registered social landlords and their subsidiaries are already subject to regulation and monitoring with regard to rental costs. The bill’s provisions would cause unnecessary administrative burdens. Keeping the current annual rent-setting process is preferable for such properties, as that allows for the consultation of tenants in the process, effective communication plans and considered board and management approval for new rent levels. Changing that would, in effect, limit housing associations’ ability to carry out those important practices, which benefit and protect MMR tenants in ways that typical private rented sector tenants are not afforded.

An April notice would align with other relevant economic adjustments, in line with the tax year. In essence, amendments 501 and 500 would stop multiple rent adjustments having to be carried out over the course of the year, depending on when a tenancy started, and it would allow RSLs to have a single rental increase for the year for all their tenants.

Our absolute priority should be to end the housing emergency by increasing supply across all tenures. Therefore, the debate and discussion around exemptions is particularly crucial, and anything that we do in the bill should be with the aim of not impacting on the supply of new houses. In including mid-market rental homes, there is a risk that efforts to regulate rent prices will have the effect of cutting off affordable housing supply and exacerbating the causes of the housing emergency.

I am satisfied that the Scottish Housing Regulator monitors and regulates rent in mid-market rental properties and their subsidiaries to ensure affordability and fairness, so I do not believe that subjecting them to the rent control measures under the bill will do anything to further deal with the symptoms of the housing emergency. Deterring investors could well exacerbate the cause. I am also satisfied that, through the lengthy rounds of consultation and evidence, and through the housing minister’s desire to meet and talk to housing providers, the organisations have successfully argued the point about the exemption of mid-market rent.

When we discussed the emergency legislation, there was acknowledgement that mid-market rent should not be caught up with that and that the issue would be addressed when it came to the permanent rent controls. Social and affordable housing, including mid-market rental properties and their subsidiaries, should not be caught by rent control provisions. Similarly, where Government grants require rents to be aligned with local affordable rents as overseen by the Scottish Housing Regulator, current affordability controls are more than adequate, so those types of properties should be exempt from additional rent control measures. That is what I have to say on amendment 411 on mid-market rent.

On amendment 416, which is in my name, the Government has already, in effect, conceded that the types of properties in the amendment should be subject to exemptions. In its consultation, it proposes exemptions for build-to-rent property, including single-family rental and mid-market rent schemes, alongside sensible carve-outs for properties that are let below market value or that are significantly upgraded or improved. The consultation document recognises that investment will not flow into a market that is limited by rent controls. Including build-to-rent properties in rent control measures is likely to exacerbate the symptoms of the housing emergency, rather than increasing the much-needed supply of houses across all tenures. That can be seen by the sharp decline in the number of properties, which is evident in figures that have been released today.

The arguments have already been fully rehearsed. There is no need to continue with the uncertainty surrounding this aspect of the bill. My amendment 416 seeks to define build-to-rent properties and to ensure that the sector is protected in as many tenures as possible. I appreciate that the Government is not opposed to the principle of the amendments but has expressed concerns that they could give rise to a legal challenge and that the issues are best addressed through the consultation process. I am happy not to move my amendments, with the expectation that the sector is provided with clarity on the issues before the final stage 3 vote.

I want to speak on Ross Greer’s tax proposals. I do not necessarily disagree with them—in fact, I agree with a lot of what he said about the ridiculous nature of having a 1991 valuation system and with a lot of his other points. I applaud him for his efforts. However, I simply say that what he is seeking to do with his amendments is to put a bill within a bill. The provisions could be included in a stand-alone domestic property tax bill, which would benefit from the level of scrutiny and engagement that such proposals need and deserve. Although I support the principle of what Ross Greer is trying to do, I think that the provisions need a legislative vehicle of their own, to get the proper scrutiny that they deserve.

Whether or not the Government introduces a bill in the remainder of this session is a moot point. You have lodged amendments to this bill, but you could have introduced your own member’s bill in the absence of Government action over the past 34 years. As I said, I support a number of the proposed changes in principle, but given the nature of the changes that we are talking about, they need to be debated and scrutinised in a bill of their own. It is purely for those reasons that I cannot support them as amendments to the bill. However, I applaud the work that Ross Greer has done to try to get the provisions into the bill.

Amendment 1066 seeks to ensure that GPs are covered by the ask and act duties that are set out in part 5 of the bill. A number of organisations have pointed out that GPs are an obvious omission from the list of relevant bodies that are subject to the ask and act duties. Aberdeen City Council pointed out the connections between health and housing and that people’s use of health services peaks just before they make their first homelessness application. However, setting out a distinct list of bodies that will have duties placed on them almost creates a lack of clarity regarding our expectations of those that are not listed.

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has also said that it would be helpful if GPs were covered by the proposed homelessness prevention duty. It points out that they would be involved in considering the extent to which any particular medical condition could impact on an individual’s capacity to sustain a tenancy.

I accept that there are compelling arguments that GPs do not currently have the capacity to be covered by the bill and that there are potential legal obstacles to including them in the obligation, as they are essentially private providers. However, the evidence that people access health services, and particularly GP services, right before they make a homelessness application suggests that GPs are a glaring omission from the ask and act duties. That omission could mean that a lot of people who could be covered by the ask and act duty at a crisis point in their lives might fall through the cracks.

Although I do not plan to move my amendment 1066, I want to hear from the Government how it intends to cover that point of contact with a public service, so that people who are threatened with or at risk of homelessness are not missed out. It is a glaring omission from the ask and act duties, and I am really keen to hear from the minister and the Government how they intend to cover that gap.

With regard to amendment 1075, funding was identified as the top priority by the homelessness prevention task and finish group, which recognised that, during the shift to a focus on prevention, resources will continue to be required to support the existing system.

The committee’s report highlighted concerns that the level of funding in the financial memorandum to the bill was inadequate in terms of both the amount assigned to local authorities to implement their duties and the lack of any consideration of resources for relevant bodies. In October 2024, the Finance and Public Administration Committee wrote to the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee to highlight serious concerns with the estimate of resources to fund the bill. It highlighted that the financial memorandum did

“not recognise the potential for increased workload not only for homelessness services, but also for other agencies which will receive referrals, such as Community Advice Services and Tenancy Support.”

As that letter set out, the City of Edinburgh Council has estimated that, if there were to be a 25 per cent increase in the number of presentations, an additional 42 employees would be required at a cost of £1.9 million per year for internal staffing. When we compare that with the figure stated in the financial memorandum of £1.6 million per year for all 32 local authorities, it only serves to highlight the underestimate of the financial cost to implement this part of the bill.

The committee recommended the publication of a revised financial memorandum before stage 1, but that has not happened. My amendment 1075 therefore attempts to rectify that by requiring ministers to publish a report assessing the financial costs to authorities before the bill comes into force, and I hope that the Government will accept it.

With regard to my amendment 1076, it is clear that part 5 of the bill will, in order for it to work effectively, involve a significant change in operation for a number of relevant bodies, including local authorities. The organisations will need time to prepare processes relating to training, co-operation and partnership arrangements, information sharing, information technology systems and a range of new ways of working.

Just now, there is very little understanding of the processes that are required to best ensure that those new duties work. It is therefore essential that we digest and implement the findings of the current homelessness prevention pilots if we want the lessons that are learned from those to be rolled out and included in an effective prevention system.

Preparation for commencement might take several years. COSLA and the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers have stated that they do not believe that there could be full implementation before 2028 at the earliest, in the context of the current national housing emergency.

There might be lessons to be learned from the gradual implementation of the end of the priority need test. By allowing time to prepare, amendment 1076 would ensure that the implementation of that work would benefit the roll-out in the years to come. The amendment would allow for learning from the on-going homelessness prevention pilots to be embedded in implementation, in a similar vein to Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 1031. That would include regulations and guidance as appropriate. Amendment 1076 would also allow for a process that is accountable to the Parliament through regular reports on progress, leading to the commencement of the legislation at an appropriate point.

I would be happy to hear the response of the minister and the Government to both my amendments in the group with regard to how we fund the system and ensure that the learning that takes place during the pilot projects is properly assessed, with time for it to be considered and rolled out to all local authorities and bodies.