Chamber and committees

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.

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.

In isolation, that is a very fair point. There is huge value in the services that you are talking about, and I think that that is understood across the sector. One of the issues is that we want the charter to be a clear, comprehensible and easy-to-use document for tenants, not an incredibly high-level detailed policy document that only housing professionals can make use of.

Through the consultation, we were keen to understand what tenants want to see in the charter. A huge range of other options are not necessarily captured in the outcomes, including the services that you are talking about; the detail of how we provide welfare rights and money advice services to tenants; how social landlords who choose to can perform a wider role; and a great many other aspects of the detailed operation of social housing.

We wanted the outcomes and the charter to reflect the priorities of tenants and the document to be expressed in clear language so that it was easy for tenants to use. The absence of specific detail on a particular issue does not reflect its lack of importance but results from our ensuring that the way that we revise and express the charter reflects the priorities of tenants and that the document remains useful to them.

The first review after the charter’s creation was in 2017, and we anticipate another five-year review. I do not imagine that we would need to make any major or comprehensive changes before that review. However, as I have said in relation to several points that have come up, the situation is changing in relation to energy, the net zero targets, decarbonisation and the role of social landlords in achieving that, as well as in relation to the wider landscape of tenants’ rights and the approach to achieving tenure-neutral outcomes between the social and private rented sectors. There will be opportunities to continue to use the charter in that changing context. However, our expectation is to have a further review at the next natural five-year point rather than open it up at a deeper level much sooner than that.