Chamber and committees

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.

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.

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.

The new deal for tenants consultation, which was launched in December, made it clear that we have more work to do to strengthen tenants’ rights and improve quality in the private rented sector. It included the two changes that we are considering, which are consistent with the broader direction of travel towards having rights in the private rented sector that are more comparable to those in the social rented sector.

To have the provisions in place now and to fail to make them permanent would create confusion for landlords and tenants if we revisited the question in the year 2 housing bill. The learning from the exercise of the provisions on a temporary basis is that they give additional protection.

Any negative consequences are extremely slight and entirely reasonable. The costs are pretty low if the tribunal takes a little longer to consider the circumstances of an individual case when there is discretion that previously had not applied.

Any negative consequences are extremely slight in comparison with the strong advantages of having the additional protection. The clear argument is to make the provisions permanent now rather than to allow them to lapse, then consider reintroducing them in the year 2 bill.

Raising awareness is an extremely significant issue that will never go away. We know that landlords in the private rented sector ebb and flow over the years—they move into and out of the sector, and tenants move into and out of the sector all the time. For a great many younger people, their first home might be in the private rented sector. Given that, there will always be a need to ensure a high level of awareness of rights and the law, to protect people in the private rented sector.

We are part way through a tenant rights awareness-raising campaign, which has been an important way to give people basic facts in the top-line messages and to point them in the direction of much more significant and detailed information, should they need it. We also work closely with organisations such as Crisis and Shelter Scotland, which work much more closely with tenants who need the additional support that those organisations provide.

The issue of awareness will never go away. We will always need to keep ensuring that people who move into the private rented sector as landlords and as tenants become aware of their rights and obligations.

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.

Overall, the picture is strong. Since the original charter was introduced, as you will be aware, the regulator monitors and reports against the outcomes in the charter, and that has shown a continued improvement, pretty much year on year. There is a strong view across the sector that, from the its creation to the first review and now to this second review, the charter has been effective and is improving standards.

It is always worth reflecting on the fact that practice and standards vary. Every social landlord will recognise that they can always do things better. It is always appropriate for any organisation, whether public service or private or third sector, to continually reflect on how it can learn lessons and do better. That applies to the regulator as well. We can continually reflect on how the regulator can provide better information for tenants, enabling them to hold their social landlords accountable.

Across the sector, the view and the evidence are strong that the charter has had a strong and pretty consistent impact in improving service.

I do not think that we have concerns that there are major issues with the accuracy of reporting.

As I said, we are looking to propose a change to the Scottish Housing Regulator’s existing functions in the social rented sector, so that it has a greater role in relation to improvement. When the legislation is introduced, it will be for the committee to consider whether we have got the approach right or whether an alternative approach is required.

I look forward to the responses to the current consultation, which we will consider carefully. We will aim to implement the most effective solution possible. I look forward to the committee’s engagement on that, too.

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.