 I extend a very warm welcome to the students and staff from the University of Stirling, all of whom are studying housing who have joined us in the public gallery this morning. Everyone present is reminded to switch off mobile phones as they affect the broadcasting system. As meeting papers are provided in digital format, you may see tablets being used during the meeting. Apologies have been received from David Stewart. Agenda item 1, private housing, Tennessee's Scotland bill. The committee will take oral evidence on the private housing, Tennessee's Scotland bill at stage 1 from Margaret Burgess, Minister for Housing and Welfare, Barry Stalker, head of private rented sector strategy and private tenancies bill team, and Kirstyn Simony-Lefevre, principal legal officer at the Scottish Government. I welcome the minister and officials and ask the minister if she would like to make a short opening statement. The bill will introduce a new private residential tenancy that will improve security, stability and predictability for tenants, while providing safeguards for landlords, lenders and investors. The private rented sector now plays a vital role in meeting Scotland's housing needs. This Government recognised this when we published our strategy for the sector in 2013, and this was the first strategy for private renting in Scotland and was developed in partnership with stakeholders. In it, we set out our vision for a private rented sector that provides good-quality homes and high-management standards, inspires consumer confidence and encourages growth through attracting increased investment. To achieve that, the Scottish Government has undertaken a range of actions to improve private renting, and that includes clarifying the existing law and charging of premium fees so that tenants cannot be charged for getting a tenancy, setting up the tenancy deposit schemes in Scotland to protect tenancy deposits, legislating to create a new tribunal for private renting, legislating to regulate the letting agent industry, providing local authorities with additional enhanced powers to tackle bad practice where that occurs. To deliver the better quality, more professional sector that we set out to achieve, we need to do more than that. We need to rebalance the relationship between landlords and tenants to one that is fairer for both and that works in today's private rented sector. Change is never easy, but sometimes it is necessary, and I believe that the changes from this bill is necessary in order to make private renting better for everyone. This will be a modern, open-ended tenancy. There will not be a no-fault ground. Instead, landlords will use new grounds for repossession, which cover all the reasonable circumstances that they would need. Rents will also be more predictable with a dedication provided where rent increases take rent beyond the market rate. Local authorities will also be able to apply for rent pressures' designation, where rent increases in a local area are having a detrimental impact on tenants and housing. I want all tenants to feel more settled in their homes and communities. That will benefit families, but also many other tenants, including young people, people with caring responsibilities and more vulnerable people as well. Tenants should be able to assert their rights where necessary without fear of arbitrary eviction, such as to be able to ask their landlord to carry out necessary repairs. I believe that the new tenancy will provide a step change in improving the quality of private renting by changing that relationship. That is not just my belief. I recently received a letter from Shelter Scotland, giving their full support for the core principles in the bill. I also recognise that landlords must also feel confident in their ability to effectively manage and regain possession of their property. If they do not have that confidence, there is a risk that some might leave the sector, and that is something that I would want to avoid. That is why it is so important to ensure that we get the balance right and that the grounds for repräsession will work for landlords as well. We have considered the grounds carefully, including what should be mandatory or discretionary. As part of our consultation, we have increased the number of grounds from 8 to 16. The first-tier tribunal will play a key role in dealing with disputes under the new tenancy. The creation of the tribunal has been widely supported by tenants and landlords representatives. It will provide a more accessible specialist form of redress. Where a ground is mandatory, the tribunal will still need to establish whether it has been met. Landlords will need to provide evidence and support of an application. Let me be clear that simply saying that they intend to meet a ground will not be adequate proof. In most cases, tenants will end the tenancy. That is what happens now under the current tenancy, and I expect that that will continue. However, where a landlord brings a tenancy to an end and this is disputed, an application will need to be made to the tribunal. Let me assure the committee that sanctions will apply should a landlord mislead a tenant into leaving their home or the first-tier tribunal into issuing an eviction order. Some of those are set out in the bill as they are specific to the new tenancy, but criminal sanctions such as for illegal eviction will also continue to apply. The Government will also ensure that tenants are made fully aware of their rights. For instance, we will include information about tenants' rights and where to seek advice in the notices prescribed under the new tenancy. I know that enforcement has been raised during the committee evidence sessions as a particular concern, and I want to reassure the committee that we will continue to work with local authorities to improve enforcement of existing regulation in the sector. Shortly, we will be consulting on new statutory guidance for local authorities on landlord registration to deliver tougher, more targeted enforcement, and we will continue to work with our partners COSLA and local authorities to ensure that the private rented sector is regulated effectively and robustly. Those are broader matters of policy. This bill is about rebalancing the relationship between tenants and landlords. Clearly, as in any case, where a balance is struck, this will not suit everyone entirely. Some will want to go further, some will want less change, and getting this right isn't easy. Overall, we have sought to strike a fair balance in what is being proposed in the bill and to ensure that the new tenancy will support a well-functioning modern sector that works for both tenants and landlords. The Government has undertaken extensive consultation and carefully developed this policy to make sure that we get the balance right. I have already outlined the work that we are doing to create a better, more professional rented sector, and this new tenancy is absolutely key to achieving that. You said that the aim of the bill was to rebalance the relationship between tenants and landlords, but can you explain why you think that the Government has got the balance right, notwithstanding the fact that this is always going to be a delicate balance to achieve? Clearly, we have received a range of evidence from a variety of stakeholders, with some, as you alluded to, such as Elat Show and the Government Law Centre, suggesting that the Government hadn't gone far enough in favour of tenants, while, of course, the Scottish Association of Landlords and the Council of Letting Agents suggested perhaps that the Government had gone too far. Can you explain why you think that the Government has it right? As you say, convener, it is a very fine balance and getting it right isn't easy, but we consulted widely in this bill and we have been consulting on it for some time, and it is part of what we are trying to achieve for the sector. However, you said yourself that the evidence has shown that some say that we are going too far one way, some say that we are going too far the other way, and I think that in itself says that we perhaps have got it right. We are somewhere in between that, and that is what we are seeking to achieve. We want to just get that right. It hasn't been an easy thing. We are not going to please everyone in this, but we do think that we have got that balance. We have struck it right. The committee has heard that, if the Scottish Government wished to specifically target bad practice from landlords and letting agents, the more appropriate route might have been stronger enforcement of existing legislation. This morning, you have said that new statutory guidance on tougher enforcement will be brought forward by the Government. Could the existing enforcement measures not solve many of the problems and the issues that the Government is seeking to address in this bill? No, I don't think that this bill is trying to do something quite different. The bill is creating a modern tenancy agreement that provides stability and security for tenants and predictability in rents. Landlord enforcement would not be able to do that in its own. I think that they are complementary to each other. I think that we can do more in landlord enforcement and we are working hard at that. That is also about improving standards in the sector, but what the bill does is to bring the tenancy agreement into the 21st century. That is what we are trying to achieve. We have a very tight time scale for the passage of the legislation. Can you say anything about the time scale for publishing the new statutory guidance? The statutory guidance for landlord enforcement. It is separately from the legislation that we are taking through, but we are consulting on that at the end of the year. It would be consulting right into 2016, so I do not know if one of you would like to say when we are planning to have that. It is our intention to have the new guidance ready and available from spring next year. That will be available for the local authority sector to make use of. That is great. I want to talk specifically about the issue of student accommodation and how that will be affected. We have had a number of representations from people who are involved in the provision of student accommodation on a business model that includes using that accommodation as a holiday let at times of the year when the students are not actually using it. How does the minister respond to the concerns that we have heard? Does she think that a business case has been made for exempting student let in the private sector entirely from the new tenancy regime? We consulted widely on that and spoke to student groups as well. We wanted to have a tenancy that was the same across the sector, whether it was someone or whether they were students or whether they were not in the student sector. We introduced a new ground for eviction if someone ceases to be a student in purpose built student accommodation. We have had a number of representations from the purpose built student accommodation sector. We think that practices can be changed because students may not want it to stay throughout the period. It is very clear that, in the bill, we are wanting landlords to be aware of as well that, when they let accommodation to someone, it is their home. We want people to feel that the private sector is their home. As you say, there has been representation from the purpose built student accommodation sector. I am still considering that and looking at what they are saying to us about one purpose built accommodation. Would the minister consider perhaps a ground for eviction for student accommodation not related to the status of a landlord but to the status of a tenant as a student? I would not be more minded to look again at the purpose built student accommodation but, at the moment, I am not minded to look at somebody as a student and say that that is a ground in itself for eviction. I am considering the student sector at the moment. It is something that we are looking at and looking carefully at what stakeholders have said about it. Clearly, I will be interested in what the committee report says in student accommodation, but I am not minded to make students being a student a ground for eviction. The accommodation that is owned by the universities is exempted from the legislation, according to my reading in the bill. Would it be conceivable that accommodation that is privately owned but entirely used as student accommodation could be treated in the same way as accommodation that is owned by universities? The reason why accommodation is owned by universities has been excluded in some ways. It is kind of set separately because the Scottish funding councillor involved and its non-charitable, non-profit making felt appropriate to exempt them. As I said, I am looking at the purpose built student accommodation. I understand that it provides the same type of accommodation for the same purposes. That is why I am willing to look at that and look again at all the evidence that we have received on that. Would it be your intention to take into account the fact that we have seen significant improvements in the student accommodation that is available, but that has been largely based on investment attracted by a business model that might cease to exist under this legislation? That is one of the reasons why I am looking at this carefully and looking at what evidence has been produced so far, what the stakeholders are telling us, and what the committee is saying in its stage 1 report. We are giving that considerable amount of thought. The Minister mentioned that one of the key things that will give tenants more security going forward is the removal of the no-fault ground. In evidence, we have heard that the removal of the flexibility in the sector made us wade landlords from investing. I was wondering what your response was to that and how you reassured them that investment in the private sector will continue to be a sound investment. A number of things do not see that as something that will put landlords off investing in the sector. We are very clear in this bill that it is about making the sector better and making it more attractive to let their properties to. Removing the no-fault ground just simply means that landlords cannot, for any arbitrary reason, just ask tenants to leave simply because a tenancy has come to an end. We have included 16 grounds where landlords can reasonably get their property back and we think that that is sufficient. I do not think that there has been a huge amount of evidence in telling us that the no-fault ground removing that has been very well supported among tenant representative groups has very much supported what we are doing in the no-fault ground. Local authorities are supporting what we are doing in the no-fault ground. I think that that is central to what we are doing in creating a modern tenancy. I notice that the chair of the review group has also said that he thinks that this is a good step forward in how Professor Douglas Robertson and how we are bringing the private rented sector into a modern tenancy regime. I welcome the minister's reassurance in that area, but Gary Mone, who was appointed by Homes for Scotland as a PRS champion, has raised concerns that there may be unintended consequences around the purpose-built student sector, the end of that and the end of the no-fault grounds for eviction. Also, the issue of rent control areas may make Scotland less attractive for investment. We also had measures put through in the budget last week with regard to mortgages for vital-let properties. Do you have a concern that there may be an impact on the sector going forward at all from this change? I do not think that what we are proposing in the bill, I think that what you mentioned there, which was not happening at the moment in Scotland, what was announced in the budget last week about mortgages for vital-let, may put people off investing in the sector. In the rest of the UK or in England, that is not happening here at this stage that applies in England. What I would say is that, yes, we have worked very closely with Jerry Moore, who is the private sector champion, who we funded Homes for Scotland to appoint the private rented sector champion. We are working hard with him and I know that he has said that it could put Scotland at a disadvantage. However, we are doing other things and working with Jerry Moore to look at ways of attracting investment into the private sector. We are looking at rental income guarantees. The chief planner has written to every local authority telling them about the importance of the private rented sector when they are looking at the housing needs and demand assessment in their area. We are doing a lot to encourage the private sector. Like everything else, there are two sides to every coin. For as many people have said, it will put off investors. We are also getting people telling us in organisations and investors telling us that it will not put them off what we are proposing. As currently proposed in the bill, we will not detract investment. It is both sides of the story and it is back to getting the balance. We think that we have got the balance. We think that it is proportionate to what we are proposing. A number of stakeholders' representatives' interests have said that all of the eviction grounds or at least more of them should be discretionary, so that the tribunal has got an opportunity to assess the reasonableness of a particular eviction according to the circumstances of the individual case. Do you have any thoughts on that? We are back to getting the balance right for tenants and landlords. We are very clear that landlords will have to be able to regain their property in certain circumstances. I said in my opening remarks that it is simply not a case that the grounds are mandatory that a landlord goes to the tribunal and says that I want to reclaim my property on the ground. The tribunal will have to look at the evidence and be sure that the ground has been established. If a landlord is going and saying that I want to refurbish my property and I want to have issued a notice and the tenant will not leave, the tribunal will have to look at the refurbishment such that the tenant has to be displaced and moved out of the property while the refurbishment is taking place. It will need to establish that there is real ground for the tenant to vacate the premises to allow the landlord to carry out the work that they are doing. We are certainly looking at ways to make that clearer in the face of the bill or in legislation sitting under it. It is absolutely clear that it is not just a tick box exercise that grounds have to be established, even mandatory grounds. The tribunal has to be satisfied that that ground has been met. If I could just as a brief follow-up on that, if a landlord was to say that I intend that property to become the home of a family member, how would the tribunal establish whether that was the case or if it was just a spurious grounds to get rid of a tenant? I will say a couple of things. I cannot pre-empt how the tribunal will act and what they look at, but they will be experts in the field. They will have to look at the evidence that is put in. I want to move a family member in. It is not a tick box exercise that would have to give information of the details. I cannot pre-empt what the tribunal will say, but we are also consulting on if a landlord gives a misleading statement to a tribunal to create an offence of £5,000. We are looking at a fine, penalty and a landlord should they give misleading statements to a tribunal. It is part of an overall picture of a landlord being a fit and proper person to carry out business of being a landlord. I think that if a tenant later is established at that ground has not been met or the tenant was misled, the tenant will have the compensation ground in the tribunal where a tenant can be compensated up to three months rent. That is an addition to any other penalties for the landlord for illegal eviction or for giving a false statement to a tribunal and being a fit and proper person to be a landlord. I think that there is a lot in this that will make landlords think twice before they use spurious cases to try and remove a tenant that should not be removed. In most cases, landlords appreciate that and manage their properties well, but those who do not, I think that there is a lot of legislation that can certainly put penalties on them for doing something that is not according to what we are trying to do here. Moving now to the business of rent arrears, the Shelter Scotland, along with some other stakeholders, represent in tenants interests. I have argued strongly that rent arrears grounds has a disproportionate effect on tenants in its current form and needs to be amended. The point out, for instance, that a tenant that may have got into arrears in their initial first month but had not succeeded in catching up within the three month period, they may have met the next couple of months' payments and may be disproportionately affected by that, in that neither tenants nor landlords may really wish to seek an eviction, but it would create a grounds for eviction. Do you feel that there is some further work required there? I think that a couple of things. Rent arrears is absolutely a key issue for landlords and sometimes for the viability of their business or their tenants. They might have the mortgage fees to pay and require rent coming in to do that, so we have to get the balance right there. Landlords need to be clear that they can recover their property and effectively manage it. Rent arrears is also a problem for tenants, and that is absolutely recognised as well by many who could be in financial hardship. It is our intention that tenants are provided with advice on where to get money and how to, as soon as they fall into arrears. However, there is a three-month period, so what we are saying in the bill is that over a three-month period, if rent arrears adds up to a full month's rent, that is a mandatory ground for eviction. However, if that is caused because of a delay in benefits that is outwith the fault of the tenant, that ground has not been met, so it is not a mandatory ground in those circumstances. There is opportunity in those three months for a tenant to catch up with some of the arrears, make arrangements with the landlord. The landlord does not have to automatically evict somebody who has a rent arrears. The landlord could issue the notice to leave for rent arrears and say that if the arrears are not cleared within three months, I will take the case to the tribunal. However, in that period, there is opportunity for the tenant to work with the landlord and make arrangements to repay the arrears. The landlord does not have to take the case to the tribunal at the end of that. Many landlords currently do not work in the private sector as well with arrangements, with their tenants, to ensure that the arrears are reducing and the tenant can remain in the property. However, we have to give landlords that ability to reclaim their property, because some of them have no other way of recovering that if the tenant continually does not pay their rent. We have struck the balance right there with that three-month period. Just one further point, minister, on this issue. It is that some landlords have complained that there is no mechanism within the bill to deal with tenants who make persistently late payments, albeit that they eventually pay. Does that cause you any concern? I think that if you have tenants that persistently make their payments late and make their payments, you are right that there is not anything currently in the bill that would cover that period. What the bill covers is rent arrears that have not been paid a month's rent arrears that are outstanding in a three-month period. If somebody is paying their rent late every month, it does not accrue to a month in a three-month period, but the landlord is getting their money, then currently there is not anything in the bill that would cover that as long as the landlord is getting their rent. We have taken a bit of evidence on antisocial behaviour and the grounds for eviction surrounding that. During the evidence on the 18th of November, some of the witnesses described this ground as mandatory. Where is the material associated with this bill describes it as discretionary, which has led to a little bit of confusion. For the record, minister, could you just give us your understanding of the nature of the antisocial behaviour ground within the bill? The antisocial behaviour ground is a discretionary ground within the bill. The landlord will have to establish that antisocial behaviour and the tribunal can determine the evidence in front of them if it goes to a tribunal if the landlord has enough grounds to evict an antisocial behaviour purposes is discretionary. Thank you for that clarification, minister. Some of the witnesses representing the landlord group's best concern that landlords would no longer be able to effectively tackle behaviour of antisocial tenants because as in many of those cases, neighbours and co-tenants would be fearful about giving evidence before a tribunal. How do you respond to those concerns from the landlords? First, let's say that we all understand and appreciate the alarm and distress caused by antisocial behaviour. It is not acceptable, it is not acceptable in the private sector, it is not acceptable in the social sector and we understand the difficulties that cause for people. However, I think that it is right that it has to be established that there has to be a process followed before somebody loses their home for antisocial behaviour. As it currently stands, it is very arbitrary in the private sector that they can ask somebody to leave simply because the lifestyle is different, it may not be antisocial behaviour, it could be an arbitrary decision. I think that for asking people to leave their home, evict people, then there has to be established grounds for antisocial behaviour. The tribunal will look at the evidence in front of them. The tribunal is not as formal and adversarial as a court, but they will have to have evidence, they will have to see what is presented to them and it may not be that they will call witnesses of neighbours, there may be sufficient evidence of what the landlord provides, there could be statements, there could be a variety of things that will be ultimately up to the tribunal to decide if that ground has been met, but I think that it allows landlords to manage their properties effectively, I think that it gives tenants an opportunity to state their case as well if it is being suggested in some ways that they are behaving in an antisocial way, they are entitled to their side of the story as well. I do not think that that is going to cause any great difficulties for landlords and any more than the current system does for landlords. It also means that if somebody was in a tenancy just now, it would have to wait until the tenancy run to the end and the landlord might not just renew it, but if there was evidence very early on in a tenancy, a landlord would be able to issue a notice to leave for antisocial behaviour, so I do think that it is fair and it is proportionate. It was due to Claire Ameson's first question, and it is helpful that you have said that antisocial behaviour is discretionary, because there has been a lot of discussion about what is meant by it. Can you explain why you have taken the decision to put it as discretionary? A lot of people have been calling for it, particularly the landlord, to be mandatory, so it would be helpful to know your thought process on that. It has been discretionary since we have published the bill, and it is discretionary because it is about fairness. Antisocial behaviour has got to be evidence that this behaviour is antisocial and is causing problems for neighbours. Is there something that can be put right? For example, sometimes it may well be that there is something, I do not know, mediation, whatever that can actually sort an antisocial behaviour problem, and is the behaviour so bad that a person requires to be evicted? Some people will, the tribunal will in some cases say, no, what I have seen here, this evidence, this is not acceptable, you are absolutely right, we are going to issue an eviction order. In other cases, the tribunal may say no, they might ask them to come back at a later stage if the behaviour persists, but there are some circumstances that a tenant could say, for example, I am sorry, I was out of order, I am willing to look at this, I am willing to talk. There is a whole range of things, but I think that it is ultimately a bit fairness and it is a bit establishing the grounds, is this antisocial or is it not? In a certain land of the current system, I do not think that it is right that a landlord can just make a decision that is very arbitrary without any evidence that somebody has committed antisocial behaviour? We have heard evidence from the landlord that their concern that many neighbours would not put themselves forward to go to a tribunal because that person then may not be fingeredly of antisocial behaviour and return to say it is a block of flats and cause disruption, then is that a concern to you at all? That applies across the board in antisocial behaviour, whether it be in the social sector or the private sector. We certainly have to be clear that antisocial behaviour is not acceptable anywhere, but it may well be that where the tribunal may not feel the need to call witnesses or to call tenants. To know about antisocial behaviour, somebody has got to have told the landlord anyway, whether it be a neighbour or whether it be generally, it is a neighbour that has reported the case, the situation to a landlord in whatever sector. They have spoken out in some ways. A tribunal may not think that they require to call people as witnesses. The landlord may want to take witnesses along with them and if they are willing to go, that is fine. The tenant may want to go and speak on their behalf. It will depend on the tribunal and it will depend on the circumstances. I understand that people can be reluctant to do that because they are fearful for themselves, but depending on what the behaviour is and if it is frightening and intimidating and the evidence can show to that extent, I think that the tribunal will do the right thing. On the theme of other grounds for evictions, a number of stakeholders have said that it should not be a mandatory ground of eviction that a landlord has ceased to be registered, for example. Wrongly, they say that it penalises tenants for landlords' failings. Are you persuaded by this view? Is this something that you might consider? We are clearly looking at the number of issues that a landlord ceases to be registered, then they are not a fit and proper person to be a landlord, so how long does it allow a tenant to remain in a property that has a landlord that is not fit and proper? We are looking at this to get something that perhaps is a bit clearer than what we are trying to do here. Again, it is about the balance. I do not know if you want to say something on this from the legal perspective. Yes, it is where it is an indefinite tenancy. We felt that if the landlord was not a fit and proper person and was not registered, then there had to be a way to bring the situation to a conclusion and having a ground to evict in that instance does bring it to a conclusion if the landlord does not change his behaviour and become registered again. Unfortunately, that seems to penalise the tenant rather than the landlord for the the bad behaviour or the poor performance. I understand that this ground had not been consulted upon prior to the introduction of the bill. Could you explain why you brought that in without consultation? There were a number of things there. In our first consultation, we had eight grounds for eviction. In our second consultation, we had 11 grounds for eviction. By listening to the state code and other pieces of evidence, that is why it was not specifically consulted on. However, I think that we have to look at this. I absolutely take your point in making that this is not the tenant's fault that the landlord perhaps fails to be registered, but if a landlord loses their registration, it is because they are behaving in a way that they are not fit to be a landlord and they have a property. In some instances, a local authority can put a rent penalty notice on, which they are not allowed to rent, so if the tenant was there. We are looking at this to see if we can get this in a way that is better, but we absolutely understand that it could be through no fault of the tenant, but in some other circumstances, likewise, if a landlord wants to sell their house or bring a family member in, that is not the tenant's fault when we understand that. However, if a landlord has bad behaviour, it will have an impact on that landlord in terms of their registration. There could be penalties on the landlord and their business and whether they continue as a business. It would be about looking and working with the landlord to see if the constraints are practised and be a registered landlord, and we have to look at that. We cannot have somebody living in a property indefinitely with a landlord that is not fit to manage that property. This is an area that we are looking at to get a straight balance a bit different. The next point was in terms of the landlord's intentions. You have already covered that with your answers on refurbishment. Mike Mackenzie had asked about another family member, the ground for moving somebody in. If guidance is going to be produced in some detail over these particular landlord's intention eviction grounds, is there something that people can refer too easily? We will provide guidance for landlords anyway, but we are also looking at whether we can do something open to any suggestions on how we can make this clearer in the bill. We cannot instruct the tribunal what to do, but we can look at how we can make this clearer of what we are saying by intention and make it absolutely clear that the landlord has still got to evidence what they are saying to a tribunal. I am very clear that any notice to leave that goes to a tenant is very clear of the rights on it about the tribunal, and if they think that this is dispute with what the landlord is saying, or think that it is pure, they can take the case to the tribunal and where they can get assistance to do that as well. It is very clear that this is not a case of the notices issued, the tenant leaves and then it transpires that it was all. We want to be absolutely clear that tenants know their rights and encourage to exercise their rights and know where to get help to do that, as well as trying to, if we can, get this clearer on the bill and we are looking at it, we are actually looking at how we can make this absolutely clearer and a bit more confidence. I mean, I appreciate members, you know, it is all right for somebody to say, oh, we intend to sell the property area, we intend to move a family member in, so that is mandatory, so that is fine, the notice will be granted. It is only going to be granted if the grounds are established and the mandatory grounds have to be established as well, but if we can make that clearer, we will certainly do so and if the committee has any suggestions how we can make it clearer, we will certainly look at that as well. Some stakeholders have argued that ground 6 relating to employees is too narrow, particularly if you think of it in the context of a rural business. Instead, it has been suggested that there should be a ground that allows eviction where property is needed to house a new employee regardless of what the property is currently being used for. Do you think that the case has been made for a broader formulation of the relevant ground? No, I do not think so. I have the ground if someone ceases to be an employee, that is a ground for regaining the property, but one of the issues in rural areas, particularly in rural areas, is the security of the tenure. The new tenancy helps to address that. I would be concerned that, in a rural area, if a family were evicted to bring someone else into the tenancy, whether it be an employee or not, that would cause me concerns because we have a family there in a rural school that is part of the community and they have been asked to leave to bring an employee in. I think that holiday less do not come into the situation. Employees have to look at their properties and how they manage them. I know that it might be difficult for them as well, but I think that they have to look at it if the purpose of this is to allow people security of tenure and to live in the private sector as their home in some way that they regard as their home. I think that it would be unfair in a rural situation to say that a family can be moved on to bring an employee in. If one employee moves, there is the opportunity that they can be asked to leave because they are no longer an employee. We put that in in listening to the legislation. I am not persuaded to ask people to leave to bring it for an employee is the right way to do it. In short, holiday less do some employers use that and can use that to turn over their employees. I think that there are other ways that they can do it, but I am not persuaded on that one. The final thing that I wanted to ask is about the sort of grounds that are not included in the 16 that have been suggested or to be. For example, there have been suggestions that there needs to be something to deal with the situation where a tenant has died or where a tenant has simply disappeared. Also a suggestion that something to deal with the situation where a tenant has served a notice to leave but has failed to vacate the property. Can I ask if the minister has any comments about whether there is a prospect for some additional grounds to deal with that sort of situation? I am not convinced that there is any prospect for additional grounds to deal with the issues that you mentioned. On the death one, we had provision that a bereaved partner can succeed the tenancy. I think that there are arguments in the situation of the death one that we need to look at again. For example, it could be disadvantages to both the family of the deceased person and the landlord the way that we have it currently in the bill. We are actively looking at bringing forward amendment at stage 2 that would bring the tenancy to an end if there is no bereaved partner to take over. That would perhaps resolve that particular point that you raised. In terms of a tenant who issues a notice to leave and then subsequently it stays on in the premises, they no longer have a tenancy at the end of their notice. They are no longer a tenancy and they are illegally occupying the property. That would be the sheriff's court that would have to step in there because they are not a tenant that can be taken to the tribunal. The tenancy would effectively be at an end and it would be up to the sheriff's court to eject them basically for being in premises unlawfully and illegally. Had people like the council of letting agents argue that there should be additional eviction grounds to be used during the initial period, for example, when a tenant has abandoned the property? What do you make of that suggestion? At the moment, we are carefully looking at the evidence that has come to the committee and to ourselves on the initial tenancy and the grounds in how it would operate. That is something that I am currently giving further consideration to. I welcome any comments and suggestions on that and how we proceed with that because there have been cases made, for example, of the abandonment one. Are the grounds sufficient? Is the initial tenancy meeting the purpose that we intended to meet at the outset of the bill? That is something that was certainly actively considering just now and I am open to suggestions on that one. Can I move on to wrongful termination? Some stakeholders have suggested that the compensation paid to tenants for wrongful termination should be higher than the three-month rent. I think that you have explained that this would not be the only penalty to be faced by a landlord, but three-month rent does not appear to be a great sum in terms of the impact on the tenant, for example. I think that we looked at the three-month rent and clearly it depends what the rent is in a property, but we felt that three-month rent would be sufficient to allow the tenant to find other accommodation, pay a deposit in other accommodation and it kind of lets the landlord know that this is something that you shouldn't do and there are other penalties on the landlord. I am not sure because compensation has got to be based on what has been lost. I think that that is why we came at that figure. We felt that that was a reasonable figure. We felt that it was a figure that the tenant could probably recover from the landlord and made our intention clear that we were not prepared to have wrongful evictions. I think that with the other penalties that the landlord can face, we will deter landlords from doing that as well because what we want is landlords not to do that. We do not want people to be wrongfully evicted. We want people to be able to stay in their home. We want it to be their home and we want to encourage landlords to recognise that we are serious about that. That is why we came to the three-month figure. We felt that that was a reasonable compensation. Obviously, people in that situation, tenants who are being evicted as it were in those circumstances, have pressing priorities to find another home, for example, so they might not necessarily take a case to the tribunal and it has been put to us by people like homeless action Scotland suggesting that third parties such as local authorities should be able to bring cases to the tribunal on behalf of tenants. Is that something that you would consider? No, it is not something that I have considered in terms of the tribunal. We have to be clear and we are always going to advise tenants of their rights and what they can do. I think that it is important that we have a model tenancy agreement as well. I think that it is important that we do that, but any case that goes to a tribunal, it is the tenant that has been wronged and the tenant. It does not mean that the tenant cannot get assistance to take the case to the tribunal, which is quite different from actually being involved in it, but I think that the tenant has to be involved in the process so that he cannot have a local authority or an organisation going to a tribunal without the tenant's knowledge or wanting to be part of that. I do think that, although I do not think that third parties should necessarily be taking the cases on behalf of the tenant to a tribunal, I do think that the tenant should get assistance to make the case to the tribunal and be supported in making their application. It can be accompanied to the tribunal to put their case forward, but I do think that they have to be involved in the process. I think that that is an important part of empowerment as well, that you have to involve the tenant in the process. I say that in the absolute understanding, not just the point that you made, that some people will have other things to be doing at the time and getting a new tenants, but it is also important that people who are unable to make their case and take their case to a tribunal can get accompanied and supported to do that. I am very keen that the tribunal system is accessible to everybody and people are encouraged to use it if they feel they have been wronged, but I do think that they need to be part of the process. The operational detail of the tribunal is still to be set out, minister. Can you update the committee on any developments in this particular area? I think that from the end of 2016 the tribunal will be taking the current private rented sector cases for transfer to the tribunal by the end of 2016. We will be consulting very soon on the operation of the tribunal, on the access to the tribunal, on the costs of the tribunal, whether there will be costs or not costs to the tribunal, on how people can be represented at a tribunal. I am very clear that a tribunal system will be less formal than a court system. The tribunal members will be experts and will build up huge expertise in the subject matter that they are dealing with. Anyone who goes to a tribunal should be able to go and represent themselves, but they should also be able to go with somebody, accompanied by someone, whether it be a lay representative or a family member or whoever, who can help them to speak in their behalf if they want to do it. That is the way that I am looking at the tribunal for the housing sector, but its part should be aware of the all-over tribunal Scotland. That is how we see it. Our clear intention is how we would want to take it forward. I do not know, in terms of the update, if there is anything else that you would wish to add, Christine. Will there be a consultation on various parts of the procedure, but there is more to be consulted upon? There has been a question raised about access to legal aid. Would that be something that the consultation would cover? Do you have any preliminary views on that, minister? Well, I have no preliminary views on it, particularly if we are consulting on it at the moment. What I am absolutely keen on is that people have representation if they wish, whether that be a legal representative or whether it be a lay representative from a specialist organisation on the voluntary sector that deals with housing cases, because there are many experts out there. However, I am keen and very keen that people have that level of representation if they wish to take their case to a tribunal. There will be expertise that will build up on that as well. Some of the stakeholders and committee witnesses have suggested that rent pressures on proposals will not address the underlying reason for rent increases, which they maintain is the problem of a lack of housing supply. Also, the association of local authority chief housing officers has suggested that these powers will not be widely used by local authority. I wonder how the minister feels about those comments. I think that the first thing, and I think that I am clear as well, I think that we are all very clear that increasing housing supply across all tenures is the sustainable long-term solution to addressing the affordability of housing. In terms of the powers being used, it is a discretionary power and it is up to local authorities to decide whether they would wish to invoke those powers or use those powers if they feel that the rent increases are causing overall pressure in the whole housing system in their area if increases are way above what is happening in the market. It is up to local authorities—it is not up to the Government to say to local authorities—to use them or don't use them. It is up to local authorities to say that there is a discretionary power here. Is this a useful tool for you to use at a particular time in your local authority area? That is the way we see it being used. We see it only being used in some areas across the country where the pressure is not there in the rents. Some witnesses have suggested to the committee that there is insufficient data on private rents for those proposals to be used effectively. Do you think that that is correct? Can you also say how the data capture on private rents could be improved? I do not know from the position at the moment to tell you how I think that it can be improved, but certainly we do provide annual statistics on rents in various areas. It is 18 broad rental market areas and I do appreciate that it might cover more than one area, could span more than one local authority. It is quite robust data from the rent service market database. Rent service Scotland and the tribunal will publish information on how they sent their rents. The bill will publish the data on how they set their rents and how they arrive at their decisions and make their determinations and adjudicate rents. That will also help local authorities in determining whether or not in their area they are required to invoke the discretionary power. The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveys have suggested that rent capping will provide a level of uncertainty for investors, particularly corporate investors, while maybe deterred from investing in rent pressure zones. Bearing in mind your answer to my first question about the need to increase supply, particularly in these pressure zones, suggests that it might have a contrary effect that ultimately would not be a good effect. Do you feel that there is some merit in what their concerns are? It is the uncertainty that they are concerned about. As I said at the very beginning, there are two sides to this. We have other investors telling us that the current proposals do not see that as a disincentive to invest in the private sector, because they are looking at the other things that we are introducing and trying to promote in getting the private sector to invest in them. They do not necessarily see that as being a disincentive. Others have said that they feel that it could be a disincentive because they are uncertain of where it is going or how far it could go. However, we are clear that what we are proposing in the bill is proportionate. It responds to the spikes in particular areas if the rents are going at a huge increase. We do not think that that will deter investment and balance. We feel that it is a proportionate measure and should be included in the bill. My final question, Minister, is that the bill suggests that, in the rent pressure zones, the cap would only limit increases for sitting tenants but not for new tenants. Some of the stakeholders have suggested that they would like to see the rent controls apply to new or initial tenants as well. Do you feel that the measures are sufficient to give adequate protection for tenants? I think that they are proportionate. When we are talking about caping rents and looking at rents, it was very much about sitting tenants and the increase that they had. That is in saying that I said to your previous question that the answer to sustainable rents and affordability is increasing supply and that is something that the Scottish Government has already announced that we will do in terms of affordable housing. What we are currently doing to attract investment into the private sector, get more investment into the sector, more properties in the sector will make the rents more affordable. That is what we are consulting on, and that is what we are doing. I think that taking it any further at this stage without any evidence that I do not think that there has been sufficient evidence to suggest that we should be taking it any further, but it would take a lot more work and a lot more consultation than what we are intending to do with the bill. The core part of the bill is about security, stability for tenants and predictability in rent increases. Minister, can I return to the issue that Adam Ingram raised earlier about the right of third parties to take an issue to the tribunal? I want to be clear that it is perhaps an issue more for the principal legal officer at the Scottish Government that the provisions in the bill are consistent with other housing legislation. The Housing Scotland Act 2014 made amendments to the Housing Scotland Act 2006 to allow third-party reporting rights for local authorities to the private rented housing panel. Is that provision the same as the provision that is proposed in this legislation? I am happy to provide an answer to that. It is slightly different. The 2014 act provides local authorities with the ability to report a breach of the bearing standard to the private rented housing panel that can assess whether there is a breach and can issue enforcement notices online on whether there is a breach. As part of that, they have a new power to be able to inspect properties to determine whether or not the bearing standard has been met or not. In effect, a tenant can do that, and when commenced, a local authority will also be able to assess whether or not the bearing standard is met. They will be able to report that to the landlord. If the landlord does not take the appropriate action, they will be able to report that to the private rented housing panel. That is very much about the condition of the property and the local authority's ability to assess whether the tenant's condition is met or not. I can see the justification for that because of the particular circumstances that you have outlined. The bill proposes that there will be an initial tenancy period of six months unless the tenant and landlord have agreed in a shorter or longer initial period as set out in section 52 of the bill. Some of the tenants' representative groups that we have heard evidence from, for example, Homeless Action Scotland and NUS Scotland, did not see a need for an initial tenancy period. Citizens Advice Scotland in the living rent campaign said that this could be a problem for some tenants, for example in cases where a tenant is a subject of domestic abuse. I suppose that my question, minister, is in responding to those concerns, do you feel that the initial tenancy period provides sufficient flexibility for tenants? I think that I responded to a question, I think that it was from Adam Ingram, on that, that in terms of the initial tenancy, I am open to looking at that, looking at the grounds that we have for eviction in the initial tenancies but also looking at the flexibilities and the whole initial tenancy. I am very interested in the evidence that we have had on it so far and what the committee might suggest on that is something that I am willing to look at and I am open to looking at. That is helpful, minister. It was just that one of the very specific examples that had been raised with the committee in evidence was a situation where a tenant is a subject of domestic abuse and needs to leave the property quickly, so clearly the Government would be sympathetic to taking any further measures to address that. That is why I am part of the reason that I saw that evidence that we will look again at what we are proposing in the initial tenancies and what we can do to balance those fears that were suggested in the evidence. My colleague Alex Johnson had raised or touched on the issue of the death of a tenant and he had said that a brief partner should be able to succeed to the tenancy, but we would need to be careful that we did not disadvantage either the family or the landlord in other circumstances. I wonder if you could say a little bit more about the issue. The bill as it currently stands, and I will defer to my colleagues if I go way off key here, the bill as it currently stands allows a brief partner that the tenancy is their principal home to succeed the tenancy and if there is no brief partner then under the current proposals in the bill the family or the estate or the executor has to bring the tenancy to an end in a reasonable time and if there is no executor and that someone dies in testate then there would have to be an executor appointed. We have looked at the stakeholder evidence and representations in that and think that that is not advantageous to a family who might have to spend money appointing an executor using any money in estate to bring a tenancy to an end and secondly we don't think that's fair to landlords either so we've looked at that and intend bringing forward an amendment at stage 2 to bring the tenancy to an end on the death of someone if there's no one there to succeed the tenancy. Okay, thank you minister and finally can you explain how the bill's proposals tie in with other legislation affecting the private rented sector and are you convinced the proposals are sufficiently connected to and co-ordinated with other elements of housing legislation? I think they are and I think I tried to kind of make that point in my opening speech that this is part of what we're trying to do throughout the private sector to modernise the private sector. It ties in with what we're doing in regulation of letting agents, what we're doing in issuing new statutory guidance on landlord enforcement and what we've done in the housing act as well. So I think all of that is just part of the picture that we are building for a modern private sector that houses 700,000 people in Scotland and I'm very keen that people in the private sector can call the home they live in their home and can feel and believe it's their home as long as they pay their rent and abide by the good behaviours you would as a good tenant that they should be able to call that their home the way other people can do in other tenures. So that's what we're trying to do with this and I think we are, we're getting there I think we're, this is the kind of final part to put it in as this modernised tenancy that's open-ended that can give people confidence in the sector, they can, if they're not getting their repairs done, they can go to a tribunal, report it to tribunal without fear of losing their home while they're doing it. So I think it just, it completes what we're trying to do within the private sector and I think we've got it right. Gay, thank you Minister. Siobhan? Minister, the Finance Committee took evidence from Glasgow City Council who suggested that the methodology for identifying the rent pressure zones was more complicated than was suggested. They also questioned the basis of the financial memorandum, the suggestion that local authorities would only incur modest costs in respect of the pressure zones. I understand that the bill team had offered to meet with the council, are you in a position to give this committee an update on how that meeting went? I mean, officials have met with Glasgow City Council to talk about the private sector in a number of occasions and including the rent pressure zones. So that's something we're looking at this bill, places no obligations in local authorities, it's a discretionary measure of the rent pressure zones so we are not saying to local authorities you must use this power. Of course we will discuss with them if they come to us and say that this is something that we would find would be a useful power for us to use but we can't do it because we financially restricted or we can't do it for a particular reason. Then we would look at that and discuss that with them in more detail and we'll continue to do that as we go through but it is a discretionary power. The bill doesn't place any new obligations on local authorities, it's there for them to use if they feel that in their area this would be something that would be useful and they'll be balancing what it costs them to do it to the benefits of actually invoking it as well. So we are still open to discussion with local authorities and that will continue right through the process. I appreciate your answer minister Ardu but on that specific one have the bill team met with the council to discuss it on that specific issue because that's the information we've received from the finance committee so understandable a lot of dialogue between yourselves and all local authorities on different parts of the bill but specifically on this. I know officials have met but I don't know if the bill team per se had met Gary, would you like to answer that? Yeah I'm happy to answer, yeah I'm at the Glasgow City Council with other colleagues a couple of weeks ago. As the minister said it was to discuss the bill, now it's been published and they've had an opportunity to look at that and put more detail as well as more broadly regulation of the private entity sector. Early discussions with them, they had some questions based on their initial take of the bill and I think that from the meeting that we've had we managed to reassure them now about some of the issues that they had initially raised but as the minister said the key point is that you know subject to the will of parliament and the bill being passed you know looking forward to the implementation of the bill we'll continue to work with them and if local authorities have matters they want to raise around implementation whether they think that there could be more assistance at help that we could provide them with and that's something which of us is a good case we would be happy to discuss further with them. Members have any further questions? Minister or officials, do you have any further comments you'd like to make? No, I don't think so. Okay, in that case can I thank the minister and her officials for attending today's meeting. This has been our final or 11 session on the bill at stage 1. The committee expects to publish stage 1 report in January. I now move this meeting into private session. Thank you.