Seòmar agus comataidhean

Obviously, that is a hugely important question, and we have actively considered it in Government. There were four key measures during the pandemic, two of which we are discussing making permanent today. As Mark Griffin said, the others were the eviction ban, which came to an end last year as areas dropped out of tiers 3 and 4, and the extended notice periods, which came to an end at the end of this month. I would however note that we have put in place transitional protection for tenants who are already facing action.

The emergency legislation that was put in place was a temporary public health protection measure. In introducing legislation of that nature, the Government needs to demonstrate the requirement for it. That legislation was introduced on the basis of public health protection and was aimed at ensuring that people could stay safe in their homes for as long as possible in the unprecedented circumstances of the pandemic.

Just because a measure is not being retained right now does not mean that the logic of it is lost. The on-going consultation on a new deal for tenants asks for views on winter evictions and on reviewing the grounds for eviction in the private residential tenancy. The experience that we have had during the pandemic will inform those reforms. However, provisions that we introduce need to be demonstrated as necessary and proportionate on their own terms, so simply extending the measures when the pandemic circumstances do not pertain is not an automatic given.

We believe that, in the case of the two provisions that we are seeking to make permanent, the experience is clear that that will have an on-going value and that it is proportionate and reasonable as a means of achieving the Government’s legitimate policy objectives of reducing the gap in outcomes between the private and social rented sectors and raising standards across the private rented sector. If we seek to make changes in relation to the issues that Mark Griffin has raised, we will do so as a result of the consultation that is under way and the proper development of a full bill on housing in year 2 of this parliamentary session.

I hope that that is enough to answer Mr Griffin’s question.

In the European context, there is always a mix, but the mix is different in different places. Germany has a much bigger private rented sector, but it has had in place for quite some time some of the rights and protections that we will explore and develop in the year 2 housing bill.

In some European countries, there is little difference in the rights and protections for tenants between what we call the social rented sector and the private rented sector. In other places, the distinction that is made over who the housing provider is—whether that is a private or a social organisation—does not have the significant impact in producing a different experience for tenants that it has in this country. The consultation on the new deal for tenants and the development of the year 2 housing bill will be informed by consideration of all the examples and experiences from other contexts.

That is where what I said earlier about striking a balance between the interests and rights of landlords and tenants comes in. The tribunal will take into account the circumstances that pertain to landlords and tenants. Having some grounds where a tribunal is required or mandated to produce an eviction order shifts things heavily in one direction—it overbalances things in terms of not taking account of the tenants’ circumstances. However, giving the tribunal discretion does not take things to the other extreme; rather, it sets things in balance and ensures that the circumstances that apply to the tenant and the landlord are taken into account fairly.

The requirement to comply with the pre-action protocol rests with the landlord, who is required to take reasonable steps. If they do so and are then met with a tenant who will not engage, they have clearly still met the test of taking reasonable steps and making the effort to, for example, make information available, explore repayment schedules and so on. If they have made such efforts, they will have met the test, which will be taken into account at the tribunal’s discretion.

We have, of course, engaged extensively on the provisions in the bill. In my opening remarks, I touched on the consultation that took place. It is possible that making all eviction grounds discretionary could lead to some increase in costs for landlords in certain circumstances—for example, as I mentioned earlier, if the consideration of a particular case takes a little longer due to the need to take individual circumstances into account. We think, however, that that is highly unlikely to lead to significant additional costs for landlords.

On the pre-action protocol provisions, the Scottish Association of Landlords pointed out during the consultation that many landlords already take that course of action to support tenants in rent arrears. Compliance with those provisions would not increase costs at all or even increase the amount of work or the action that is necessary for those who follow best practice. It would bring the additional advantage of encouraging and requiring good practice by those who have not previously taken that approach, but we do not believe that the provisions would create any significant additional costs for landlords.

I guess that the ideal is that we increase the number of situations in which an alternative route or resolution is found. One would hope that if a landlord made such an approach and the tenant engaged constructively, the case would never have to reach the tribunal stage, because a way of resolving the situation and sustaining the tenancy would be found. That is what we are looking to achieve. It seems to be fairly clear that if a landlord has taken the steps and is still, because the tenant has refused to do so, unable to engage properly with their tenant, the tribunal will be able to take that into account.

Yes, indeed. We are seeking to make our temporary provisions permanent and currently have a live consultation, with the introduction of a housing bill expected in year 2 of the current session of Parliament. That gives us the opportunity not only to continue the current system that was put in place temporarily, but to gather evidence and to gain understanding, and to learn from our experience of the system’s operation. That will inform our consideration of proposals to refine or adjust the system in the year 2 housing bill.

I take on board the cautionary tale about Montreal. I will make a note not to seek to learn too many lessons from the circumstances there.

That said, the longer-term work, beyond these particular measures, will include looking at the issue of winter evictions. Again, across European countries, there are a range of approaches to that. We will consult on the options to recognise the particular circumstances in winter, including the increased financial costs that people face at that time of year, as well as the lack of access to services at short notice that people might experience during some parts of the season.

Of course, if there is a protected period for evictions during winter, there will be similar concerns about what happens when that comes to an end and whether there might be unintended consequences. Therefore, we want to understand everybody’s perspective on such proposals so that we can ensure that we design provisions that are right for Scotland’s circumstances.

With regard to the picture that you paint of the role of the private rented sector in relation to homelessness, we should be aspiring to a situation in which the private rented sector provides flexibility and gives people who are facing homelessness ways of resolving their issues and avoiding that risk but also gives people the opportunity to move out of homelessness and get a tenancy that will be right for them, will support them, is in the right place and is at an affordable price. That is what we should be aiming for, and it can do that. As I said earlier, at other times the private rented sector has been the biggest source of newly homeless people, and that is what we need to avoid.

The requirement for pre-action protocols is in line with what has already been acknowledged as being best practice by good landlords who want to avoid evictions. We should recognise the fact that good professional landlords do not like the idea of instability in their tenancies. They want stable tenancies that work, and having that goal of avoiding eviction and trying to reach a way of sustaining a tenancy, where possible, through discussion with the tenant and pointing them in the direction of money advice services and financial support is a clear way of ensuring that we avoid a situation in which people are evicted into homelessness, where that is avoidable. The tribunal having the discretion to take into account the circumstances in which the landlord has attempted to go through the steps of the pre-action protocol is part of that.

Those steps will not be a magic bullet—no one is suggesting that this is the only thing that we need to be doing—but they will clearly be positive and beneficial with regard to our attempts to prevent homelessness, and are very much in line with the work of the groups that you mentioned that are concerned with these issues.

In some circumstances, the awareness-raising work is important in that regard. As we said earlier, the diversity of the private rented sector is significant. There will be landlords—perhaps those who are more likely to join organisations such as the Scottish Association of Landlords—who are aware of best practice and of the range of places where they can signpost a tenant for additional support if they need it. There will also be landlords who might not necessarily have encountered that before—they might not have intended to become a professional landlord and they might never have had a tenant before, let alone one who is in difficulty. If that is a new experience for them, they need to have access to information about how they can support their tenant as well as being aware of the requirement and expectation that they should try to do so.

I mentioned earlier some of the ways in which the Scottish Government funds, supports and works with organisations in the public and voluntary sector to provide those services, but we also have to ensure that landlords and tenants are aware of those sources of support, can confidently engage with the steps that we describe in the pre-action protocol, know what is required of them and are aware of where they can get additional help if they need it.

Again, I recall some of the discussion that you had on this with the earlier panel this morning. I noticed that some of the discussion on whether the permanence of the provisions should be considered in the year 2 housing bill considered the current course of action almost in isolation, instead of comparing it with the alternative course of action.

If we were to consider implementing the provisions in the year 2 housing bill, we would in effect have a situation where the provisions apply in the social rented sector but not in the private rented sector. Then you would bring them in, then let them lapse and then bring them in again. I think that that would lead to significant confusion—almost bewilderment, to be honest—for tenants and landlords and to a significant risk of confusion at tribunal level about precisely how the tribunal is supposed to treat each individual case at various times.

The evidence and experience that we have had from the operation of those two specific temporary provisions indicate that they are both proportionate means of achieving a legitimate objective of the Government, and that they have demonstrated a wider long-term value that transcends the particular circumstances of the pandemic. Having that in-out, in-out approach of letting them lapse and then bringing them back in again would, I think, cause far more confusion than any additional clarity that would come from consultation. I would reinforce the fact that the strong support for those measures—in particular, from organisations that are concerned with the rights and interests of tenants as well as the prevention of homelessness—gives us confidence that the measures will have a positive effect.