Chamber and committees

I am the owner of a private rented property in the North Lanarkshire Council area.

Amendments 109 and 110 seek to improve the information, evaluation and reporting of the operation and effect of the provisions in part 4 and their precursors, which is substantially lacking at the moment.

It is clear to anyone with an interest in the private rented sector that there is a lack of hard and fast data to give an understanding of that sector, particularly when it comes to the length of tenancies, rent levels and the make-up of the sector. Amendments 109 and 110 seek to address that in a small way through the collection of more data, which would put us in a much more informed position ahead of the forthcoming housing bill and in assessing how the provisions have worked and continue to work.

Amendment 109 would require an evaluation of the operation and effect of part 4 and that tenants, landlords and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service be consulted. It would also require that the impact on those groups be assessed one year after royal assent and in time for the housing bill.

Members will know that the provisions in part 4 maintain the pre-action protocols and the requirement for all eviction grounds to be discretionary. Those measures are already active in the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020 and the Coronavirus (Scotland) (No 2) Act 2020, so amendment 109 would require the evaluation to cover three years of continued operation.

Amendment 110 would require the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to publish quarterly statistics relating to the operation of the provisions in part 4. Anyone who has tried to retrieve statistical information from the service will know that that is difficult. It is a transparent body and publishes its individual judgments clearly, but it has been difficult to find overall aggregated statistical information on the work of the First-tier Tribunal.

We want tenants’ rights to be protected so that people are not evicted from their homes as a result of hardship faced during the pandemic and subsequent cost of living crisis. However, we recognise concerns that the measures in the existing coronavirus legislation are not supported by information or evidenced reporting on their effectiveness.

At the moment, the extent of the debate has essentially been two sides—the tenant side and the landlord side—saying that they do or do not agree with the measures, but without there being any underlying evidence for their positions. The reporting requirement would fill that gap.

The Scottish Association of Landlords has questioned the effectiveness of the move to discretionary grounds, having published its analysis of tribunal cases. That fairly lengthy piece of work showed that only one eviction had been prevented on the grounds of reasonableness.

I am pleased that Shelter Scotland supports my amendments. At stage 1, it recommended evaluation and monitoring of the pre-action protocols so

“that they are working in practice, with the Tribunal ensuring that they are upheld.”

Legislation without robust evidence of the impact of the policies was far from best practice, albeit that it was done with the best motivations in mind. It would be entirely unacceptable to remove tenants’ rights in the absence of any compelling information to do so. I believe that the amendments strike a balance in setting a requirement for post-legislative evaluation to assess the effects of the decision to legislate two years ago.

I move amendment 109.

In relation to amendment 111, we were sympathetic to the idea of a sunset clause, but one that was linked to the introduction of the housing bill. However, I understand that there are difficulties with that in legislative terms. I do not support amendment 111. It seeks to introduce a hard date for the relevant provisions to expire, which could result in the protections that the bill introduces for tenants simply expiring if the housing bill was not introduced by the specified date.

Amendment 109 is unique in the sense that representatives of landlords and of the tenants lobby are equally supportive of using the proposed provisions to fill a particular data gap and to fill a gap in assessing the Government’s performance against the measures in that part of the bill. However, I take on board what the cabinet secretary has said and the offer that he has made for Mr Harvie to meet me to discuss the matter. Therefore, I seek permission to withdraw amendment 109.

Amendment 109, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 110 not moved.

Amendment 111 moved—[Edward Mountain].

Are any authorities doing that proactive engagement work with people on lists to identify sites and encourage them to work together?

We certainly intend to put that question to them, and we will reflect your comments back to local authorities when we come to them.

We have touched on the provision that says that local authorities should

“take reasonable steps to ensure”

that the number of people on waiting lists is

“no more than one half of the total number of allotments”.

Do you know where that figure came from? Was it just plucked out of the air? Is that a reliable or reasonable figure to use?

Thanks. My final question is about how waiting lists operate. We have spoken about the immense benefit of allotments to physical and mental health and their contribution to reducing household bills through food growing. Is it appropriate that a waiting list should operate on a timed basis, or should we be looking at an allotment allocation policy that is based on need rather than time?

Can anyone else shed any light on that? Do we have an idea of general numbers of people waiting for an allotment? Could the Government or local government do more to co-ordinate a national or local authority level register to assist with waiting lists and gauging demand?

My first question is for Richard Crawford. We have touched on waiting lists. Do you have any idea of how many people across Scotland are currently on a waiting list for an allotment?

That is reassuring. We heard from witnesses last week about concerns that manufacturers might try to game the system, so it is helpful to know that that will be kept under review.

We have heard concerns about the application of BS8414 as a route to compliance for cladding on buildings. I know that the situation has changed so that any application to use it must be notified to the Government’s building standards division. Is that robust enough, given the concerns? Does the minister have concerns about BS8414 being used as a route to compliance?

I am not sure. Do any of the witnesses have experience of innovative construction methods being used at their sites?