Chamber and committees

What are your views on the bill’s provision of extra rights for tenants to personalise their homes? What would be the benefits of such rights? Would they be enforceable in practice? Perhaps Lyndsay Clelland could also expand on her organisation’s written submission on how we could link those rights to rights to adaptations.

I have a question on joint tenancies for Eilidh Keay or Emma Saunders. Your submission welcomes the provision on ending a joint tenancy but you have raised concerns on the impact that that has on the remaining tenants in a joint tenancy and said that they will not see any benefit from the provision. Can you elaborate on that and make any suggestions for improvements on the ending of joint tenancies?

We have heard evidence that suggests that there is relatively low use of the rent adjudication process. Why do you think that is?

Before I ask my question, I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I was the owner of a private rented property in the North Lanarkshire Council area until July last year.

Will the bill team provide an overview of the equality impacts of the bill’s provisions, particularly as regards the rented housing proposals?

Okay. It is interesting to know that you are having conversations with rent service Scotland, it is flagging that as an issue, and that has been the driver of the change in the bill. Do you have any information about the number of inquiries that come in that are not followed up with full applications as a result of those conversations? As well as the change to remove the ability to set a higher rent, were any other measures considered to improve access to the adjudication process?

The Nationwide Foundation’s better renting research found that some tenants were less likely to exercise their rights due to a power imbalance between tenants and landlords. There is a perception for tenants that if they try to enforce their rights, they will simply be evicted. While giving tenants more rights, how will we give them more power individually to enforce those rights?

Have there been any problems in accessing sufficient data in order to make comparisons about open-market rent levels? Is that more of a problem in cities and towns or in rural areas? Do you have any information on that?

I have another question about the ruling. The court considered, with regard to the exceptional housing land release policy, whether there was still a target in the planning system. I think that the court decided that the minimum all-tenure housing land requirement—MATHLR—figures were a target. The Government contention has always been that MATHLR figures are a minimum—that is in the name—and that authorities should go beyond them. Given the decision of the court, does the Government plan to review guidance around MATHLR figures to give planning authorities not just the confidence but the incentive to go past them, especially given the declaration of a housing emergency?

Is it not the case that a consultation on the criteria for amending NPF4 closes tomorrow? My question was about how, given the new national outcome and the declaration of a housing emergency, other Government directorates are feeding that relatively new information into a consultation that closes tomorrow.

I will carry on with the theme of data and research on existing brownfield sites. As part of that exercise, will you be looking at the age profile of that brownfield land? There is a contention that there is brownfield land that has been designated as effective land supply, but it has been in plans for generations and there is a reason why it has not come forward. Should we just say that, once we get past a certain cut-off date, it is not effective land supply and that we should look for other sites to fill that gap? I am interested to know whether the research will look at the age profile of that land.