Meeting of the Parliament 21 January 2016
I thank the Minister for Housing and Welfare and the Government for holding this debate on the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Bill. I was pleased to see the Government introduce a bill that relates to the concerns of those in the private sector. It is right that the Government legislates to protect tenants but does not legislate in a way that hinders landlords. The principles of the bill will achieve that, but there are areas in which it can be improved.
I am a member of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, which considered the bill. Broadly, I welcome many of the proposals in the bill and efforts to work towards a more cohesive relationship between landlords and tenants but, having heard evidence from a number of interested parties during the committee’s consideration, I will take this opportunity to say where the bill does not go far enough to protect the rights of tenants.
The bill proposes 16 grounds to allow landlords to recover their properties. Of the 16, 12 are mandatory and four are discretionary. As recommended, the no-fault ground is not one of them. I hope that, as a result of that, tenants will be empowered to speak out about unsatisfactory property conditions without fear of repercussion. They will be more secure in the knowledge that they will not have to fear a short notice period at the end of their tenancy. Quite simply, it is wrong that a family could have their home and security pulled out from under them with no cause or reason.
With the withdrawal of the no-fault ground, it is important that landlords and tenants alike are able to have confidence in the fairness of the proposed new tribunal system. The minister has said that the new system will be delayed until December 2017. I would welcome further comments on that in her closing speech, as the new system is key to the success of the bill. I am surprised that she did not mention it more in her opening remarks. It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that tenants are adequately advised on navigating the new system. When the committee took evidence on the bill, Shelter Scotland was right to ask what advice, assistance and legal representation would be offered to low-income and vulnerable tenants. Furthermore, Crisis Scotland asked what fees would be required to access a tribunal. As with access to any other aspect of the law, finances simply should not come into it. At the time of the committee’s evidence taking, the minister did not offer an opinion on whether legal aid should be provided or confirm whether tenants would face financial charges for going to a tribunal. It is critically important that those questions are answered.
In its evidence to the committee, the Scottish Government argued that the 16 grounds covered “all reasonable circumstances” for recovery of property. However, the committee was not so sure and recommended that the Government should consider whether the bill’s penalties to deter landlords from terminating tenancies falsely are sufficient. Many advocates for vulnerable people felt that the grounds were unbalanced in favour of the property owner. The Govan Law Centre gave particularly scathing evidence to our committee, saying that the grounds were
“the equivalent of giving a tenant a zero-hours contract on their home”.—[Official Report, Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, 18 November 2015; c 27.]
The living rent campaign believed that elements of the bill were skewed in favour of the landlord and suggested a hardship provision to empower tribunals to delay repossession of a property, to allow for alternative resolutions.
Having spent some time on the Parliament’s Equal Opportunities Committee, it would be remiss of me not to mention the equalities concerns about the initial six-month tenancy period that were raised during the committee’s consideration of the bill. The living rent campaign argued that tying tenants into a six-month contract could present “serious equalities issues”. If someone is required to pay for a property even if they no longer live in it, it could hinder their attempts to leave an abusive relationship. In its recommendations to improve the bill, the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee concurred with that and encouraged the Government to allow those in abusive relationships to leave their tenancy without fear of financial penalty.
The bill is a good start at tackling the problems that are inherent in the private rented sector, but the Government should, in the interests of good governance, seriously consider the points that have been made on the bill by the committee and members on all sides of the chamber.
15:08