Seòmar agus comataidhean

Indeed. The proposal will not only close a gap between the social and private rented sectors—by making provision that is permanent in the social rented sector permanent in the private rented sector—but will normalise what, as it made clear in its evidence, the Scottish Association of Landlords considers to be best practice. That is consistent with the general direction of travel; we are looking to close the gap in outcomes generally between the public and private rented sectors, so that outcomes do not depend on where people rent, and we want to raise standards across the board. The measure has received support across the board because it is clear that it will achieve that objective.

Good morning. I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words about the tenancy provisions in the bill.

I thank everyone—individuals and organisations—who engaged in the consultation process, which helped to inform the development of the bill, or who provided comments in response to the committee’s call for evidence.

Before I turn to the detail of the tenancy provisions, I will give a general overview of the bill. The Scottish Government’s priorities are to continue to lead Scotland safely through and out of the Covid pandemic and to address the inequalities that have been made worse by Covid, progressing towards a wellbeing economy and accelerating inclusive person-centred public services.

As part of the process of learning lessons from the pandemic, the Government is committed to reviewing the impact of Covid on the Scottish statute book. The bill extends to around 30 different topics, most of which are being scrutinised by the COVID-19 Recovery Committee or other subject committees.

I turn to the tenancy provisions in particular. Part 4 relates to eviction from properties in the private rented sector. The effects of the coronavirus pandemic have undoubtedly led to a reduction in income for many households across Scotland. We already know that some of our most financially vulnerable citizens live in the private rented sector, and the impacts of the pandemic—immediately and in the longer term—mean that some private tenants are finding themselves in significant financial difficulty.

In recognition of that, the two emergency coronavirus acts—the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020 and the Coronavirus (Scotland) (No 2) Act 2020—introduced a number of key provisions to protect tenants, and we are now seeking to introduce two of those on a permanent basis, because they have improved fairness in the system and better balanced the needs of tenants and landlords, and they explicitly give tenants support when it is most needed. The first concerns the private landlord pre-action protocol in relation to evictions on the grounds of rent arrears, while the second is to ensure that all eviction cases that go before the housing and property chamber of the First-tier Tribunal are considered on a discretionary basis, when previously some eviction grounds would have resulted in a mandatory eviction order being issued.

I will address the pre-action protocol provisions first. They formalise the steps that a private landlord should take as early as possible to support a tenant who has fallen into rent arrears. That aims to ensure that all steps have been taken to sustain a tenancy before the landlord takes action to evict.

The protocol sets out three key areas of action a landlord should take to support a tenant in rent arrears. The first action is for landlords to give tenants clear information relating to their rights in relation to eviction, how they can access information on financial support and debt management and an overview of their tenancy agreement; the second action is for landlords to make reasonable efforts to agree with the tenant a reasonable repayment; and the third action is for the landlord to give reasonable consideration to the steps that the tenant has taken. The tribunal must take into account the landlord’s compliance with the pre-action protocol when deciding whether to issue an eviction order.

Pre-action protocols have been in place in the social rented sector in Scotland for a number of years. Therefore, making the provision permanent for the private rented sector is an important step towards ensuring that there is a parity of rights across the rental sector in Scotland.

During the consultation on the bill, some private landlords and their representative bodies advised that they already take such action to support a tenant who has fallen into rent arrears. Therefore, the provision formalises what is already seen to be best practice by professional landlords within the private rented sector.

The second provision that we are seeking to make permanent is one to ensure that, in all cases that go before the First-tier Tribunal, eviction is ordered only where it is reasonable to do so. All eviction grounds would, therefore, become discretionary. Prior to the emergency legislation being introduced, if eviction was sought on certain grounds—such as the person being three or more consecutive months in rent arrears—the tribunal was obliged to issue an eviction order.

By ensuring that every ground for eviction is discretionary, we ensure that the tribunal is able to consider all relevant factors in eviction cases and determine whether eviction is reasonable. That would include consideration of whether a private landlord has undertaken all the steps that they should have taken as part of the pre-action protocol stage, or of any proactive steps that a tenant might be taking to reduce rent arrears. Again, it is worth highlighting that similar provisions have been in place in the social sector for many years.

I am aware from the responses that were received during the 12-week consultation period for the bill, and the responses that the committee received to its call for evidence, that diverging views exist on the tenancy provisions that we are seeking to make permanent. Tribunal discretion, in particular, is seen by some private landlords to create an unfair balance of rights between tenant and landlord. Private landlords argue that that provision will drive up costs, increase risk and dent investor confidence.

It is important to note that the tenancy provisions do not prevent a private landlord from seeking to recover possession of their property. Instead, the provisions introduce additional layers of protection to ensure that all avenues have been exhausted in sustaining a tenancy and that the eviction itself is reasonable, given the individual circumstances of the case. The fact that the tribunal has discretion allows it to take into account all the circumstances of the tenant and the landlord in order to come to a fair and appropriate conclusion.

Conversely, tenant representative groups have strongly welcomed our intention to introduce a private landlord pre-action protocol and tribunal discretion on a permanent basis. You will be aware that organisations such as Shelter Scotland, Citizens Advice Scotland, Living Rent, Public Health Scotland and Police Scotland support the move. They highlight that the negative financial impacts of Covid are on-going and that the tenancy provisions will help to deliver a recovery from the impacts of the pandemic. Indeed, Shelter Scotland specifically states that the tribunal discretion provisions will disproportionately impact people on lower incomes for the better and help to deliver a wellbeing economy.

Part 4 of the bill supports the Scottish Government’s Covid recovery strategy and its overall objective of addressing harms that have been caused by the pandemic and tackling systematic inequalities that have been made worse by the pandemic. It also supports the Scottish Government’s draft rented sector strategy, which, as you will be aware, we are currently consulting on. That aims to deliver a new deal for tenants, giving them more secure, stable and affordable tenancies, with improved standards of accommodation, new controls on rent and more flexibility to personalise homes. We have already committed to introducing a new housing bill in the second year of this parliamentary session in order to deliver on some of the legislative commitments that are contained in the strategy.

As I set out at the beginning of my statement, many of the people who live in the private rented sector are among the most financially vulnerable people in our society. In particular, that applies to people who have an income but are still living in poverty due to the longer-term impacts of the pandemic, coupled with ever-increasing living costs. I think that we are all painfully aware that that situation might continue to be exacerbated.

Making the tenancy provisions permanent will, therefore, provide an important extra layer of security for such households, as well as helping to ensure a parity of rights for renters, no matter whether they are in the private sector or the social rented sector. I also emphasise that the provisions will still enable landlords to recover possession of their property in circumstances in which a tenancy is genuinely unsustainable.

Yes. The grant fund is focused on helping tenants who are struggling financially. It is fair to say that, given the current circumstances, which apply more widely than to the operation of the private rented sector, we are all very conscious that the cost of living crisis is already severe and might continue to be exacerbated. Some of the actions that we can consider will go beyond my brief. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government wrote to councils in December—she followed up with them last week to reiterate it—to say that payments from the tenant hardship grant fund should be made to those who are in most financial need and who face the risk of homelessness, in particular people in the private rented sector who may be at risk of eviction. People in the social rented sector whose incomes were already low and have been hit hard by the pandemic can also get help through the scheme.

Under the pre-action protocol, landlords should make tenants who are at risk of losing their home as a result of rent arrears aware of all the forms of financial support that are available, and not just the tenant grant fund.

There will continue to be on-going debate across Parliament, and there will be discussions across a number of portfolios in Government, to ensure that we take the most ambitious approach that we can to supporting people through the cost of living crisis. That will apply to ministers who have a housing brief, but it will certainly go beyond that.

Most fundamentally, and to put it at the simplest level, that will allow the tribunal to consider all circumstances relating to the landlord and the tenant. If tribunal discretion is made permanent—if the committee agrees with our proposal—landlords will still be able to pursue eviction when they believe that it is necessary. The proposal will not fundamentally end or curtail the rights of landlords. However, being able to take into account individual circumstances, which include, but are not limited to, those that have been caused by the pandemic, will provide a far fairer balance of rights for everybody involved.

In the committee’s earlier evidence session, the example was given of a private tenant who had to be moved in order to escape an abusive or violent situation at home and faced additional costs because of the price of the property that they were moved into. Such circumstances need to be taken into account and understood. There will be other such circumstances that members from all parts of the country will recognise from their constituency and regional work. For example, in a rural area, there might be very little alternative housing available. Even if a landlord has a reasonable case to make, they will need to balance that against the experience of the tenant, if no alternative housing is available.

Individual circumstances need to be balanced and taken into account. We believe that giving discretion to take into account individual circumstances on all grounds will allow the proper balance to be struck—as it has been during the period when emergency legislation has been imposed.

The charter relates more to the responsibilities of social landlords than to those of the local authorities, unless we are talking about council housing. The separate function with regard to the provision of, for example, welfare rights advice or housing advice is separate and does not necessarily come within the charter’s ambit. That said, the approach that we are taking in trying to achieve tenure-neutral outcomes and to introduce regulation in the PRS that, although perhaps not identical to that for the social rented sector, integrates with it to get a more coherent approach to achieving the human right to adequate housing for everybody, regardless of tenure, will go a long way towards addressing situations such as you are describing.

Some of the responses from individuals might have been about the service that they were getting from their social landlord, rather than about the contents of the charter. That is probably the main reason for that statistical difference between organisations and individuals in their overall level of positivity .

In that context, it is always legitimate for people to raise whatever issues they have. If they have an issue with a social landlord, it is perfectly fine for that to be heard. That individual difficult case or circumstance needs to be dealt with by their social landlord or, in extremis, by the regulator, rather than necessarily being reflected in the charter itself.

However, the overall view from organisations and from individuals was pretty supportive on the contents of the charter. There were really not many major proposals for change. That is why the changes that we are proposing are relatively modest.

I hope that it is well recognised that we talk about the right to adequate housing as a human rights issue pretty consistently. We are moving the debate on to recognise that that point needs to be expressed and experienced across the tenures. The right to adequate housing includes affordability and issues around personal control and dignity, which is why we are talking about changes in the private rented sector in relation to things such as personalising a home—it is hugely important to recognise that a rented home is somebody’s home, not just a property with a tenancy.

In relation to choice, there are many reasons in different sectors why somebody might feel that they do not have the ability to make choices about where they live or the kind of property that they have. In relation to the PRS, it might simply be a matter of price. We are very aware of the particular challenges of rent increases over recent years, especially in cities such as Glasgow and Edinburgh, which is why we are committed to introducing proposals on rent controls. The social rented sector already has regulation of rent and requirements on landlords to consult, so the choice that people have there is not necessarily the same as in the private rented sector.

I hope that those issues will come out in the current consultation, and we will obviously take account of the committee’s particular views on how we can express those matters better.

It is the Parliament that has given the responsibilities and duties to the regulator, and the regulator reports to the Parliament. We propose—or, at least, in the current consultation, discuss—some potential changes to the remit of the regulator; as I mentioned earlier to the convener, there is a proposal for a regulator for the private rented sector as well. There will be some discussion, no doubt, about how and to what extent those might integrate, or whether there are reasons why we should keep them fully separate.

The regulator will, I think, be reporting to the committee fairly soon. That is an opportunity for the committee to hold the regulator to account for its work and for the reports that it presents.

It might be that officials have an extra word to add here. I suspect that some of those questions should be put to the SHR. Parliament sets the legislation that sets out the duties of the independent regulator and the Government can propose changes to that legislation, but we do not instruct the SHR on how to perform its functions, or individual social landlords on how they should achieve the framework’s outcomes. Some questions might be more relevant to the SHR than they are to the Government.

Anne Cook might want to add something.

Obviously, there have been significant issues in the past couple of years, and we are aware that the timescales for repairs have suffered as a result of the pandemic. I think that most people would acknowledge that that has been for understandable practical reasons. As we recover from the pandemic, it will be important to ensure that social landlords do what they can not just to reduce those timescales but to address any backlog.

The regulator, which you will hear from later this month, collects information on timescales. I will be as interested as you are in the on-going reporting of the information that the regulator can present to ensure that we address those issues. However, as I said, it is for the regulator, which is independent of Government, to collect that information and for social landlords to address how they best achieve the outcomes that are set in the charter.