Chamber and committees

Based on feedback from the sector, the five-year assessment period would allow us to leave sufficient time for rent levels to stabilise, and, as we always aim to do, would provide certainty for landlords. We have previously engaged with the sector through the private rented sector review group. There is also an on-going consultation process, which we will continue with.

Apologies, I am trying to find my place.

On amendments 94, 95, 96 and 97, having rent control in place for shorter periods of time could also create uncertainty for landlords about whether more frequent decisions would apply in their area. The bill provides a number of checks and balances, as Scottish ministers will have a duty to keep rent control areas under review in order to ensure that they remain proportionate, and to vary or revoke the regulations if they are not proportionate. That approach would allow for a shorter duration of rent control, where appropriate. Therefore, I urge Meghan Gallacher not to move amendments 94 to 97.

Amendment 69, in the name of Graham Simpson, would oblige all local authorities to establish rent boards, regardless of whether there is a rent control area within the local authority area, although the rent boards would have certain functions only if a rent control area was in place. Although I agree with the importance of monitoring the operation of any legislation, establishing 32 local authority rent boards would be costly and, arguably, disproportionate, given that some local authorities may not have a rent control area in place at a given time. Many of the functions of the rent board, as set out in the amendment, are already provided for in the bill. Section 11 requires ministers to keep rent control areas under review. The bill also includes regulation-making powers that would allow ministers to specify properties that should be exempt from rent control, or circumstances in which a modified rent cap should be applied. The bill would also require Scottish ministers to consult before the powers are used, and regulations under those powers would be subject to parliamentary oversight. The same level of scrutiny would not be applied to the functions of a rent board.

I note the intention that rent boards should support tenants with any appeal to a rent officer or the First-tier Tribunal. Although those processes are designed to be accessible, I recognise the intent in Graham Simpson’s amendment 69 and will continue to consider how to best support his amendment. I would be happy to engage with him in that respect. However, I do not consider that creating another statutory body is the best approach to delivering what he intends. For all those reasons, I cannot support amendment 69, and I urge Mr Simpson not to move it.

I urge Rachael Hamilton not to press amendment 203. I also urge her not to move her other amendments in the group, Meghan Gallacher, Carol Mochan, Maggie Chapman and Graham Simpson not to move their amendments, and Edward Mountain not to move amendment 143. I urge committee members to support amendments 278, 279 and 280 in my name, as well as amendment 142, in the name of Edward Mountain. I urge the committee not to support the amendments in the group in the names of Rachael Hamilton, Meghan Gallacher, Carol Mochan, Graham Simpson and Maggie Chapman and Edward Mountain’s amendment 143, if they are moved, for the reasons that I have set out.

In terms of where the issue was 15 months ago, the Government accepted the recommendations and has been working with the sector on how they would be implemented. The important point for me is how they would be implemented. That is the point that I am trying to make on the further consultation that would be required. They were accepted, because it was an independent review group, but the important part of the issue is how they would be implemented.

The principle of the recommendations and how they are implemented merits further discussion. The important point is how the recommendations would be implemented. The amendments, which were lodged at a relatively late stage after the PBSA review group reported, need to be discussed further with the group in relation to how the recommendations would be implemented. I ask members not to move the amendments, but to continue to work with me and the sector on the issue. I am happy to have discussions about individual amendments, but I think that it would be collectively advantageous for us all to meet with the PBSA review group to discuss that as we look forward.

I say to members that, whether they want to move their amendments at this stage or not, it is important that we have discussions about the implementation of the recommendations, and that we further discuss the amendments with the review group. I am asking members not to move their amendments in the group at this stage, but, as I said, I am willing to engage with members, either individually or collectively, along with the PBSA review group, regarding the actual implementation of the recommendations.

Amendment 183, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, responds to concerns about difficulties that students in purpose-built student accommodation have in providing a suitable guarantor. Although the amendment is well intentioned, it could inadvertently make things more difficult for students, particularly foreign students and those from poorer backgrounds, to find accommodation, increasing their risk of homelessness. That is because a guarantor and advance rent are options that can be used to facilitate a let where the prospective tenant is unable to demonstrate sufficient income or creditworthiness. I ask Jeremy Balfour not to move amendment 183.

Amendment 407, in the name of Edward Mountain, would increase the maximum limit for tenancy deposits from two months to three months for international students who are not required to provide a guarantor. I understand that there can be barriers for international students to accessing the PRS, such as the difficulty of providing a UK-based guarantor. However, the introduction of an increased deposit amount in place of a guarantor requirement is unlikely to be a sufficient reassurance for private landlords where a prospective tenant is unable to sufficiently demonstrate income or creditworthiness without a suitable guarantor. Careful consideration would also need to be given to ensure a fair approach for all students and the amendment does not strike that balance. I therefore ask Edward Mountain not to move amendment 407.

Maggie Chapman’s amendment 535 would require ministers to establish through regulations a public body to act as a guarantor for non-UK domiciled students. I am sympathetic to the outcomes that she seeks to achieve, but it would be a complex issue, and there would be on-going financial implications for the Scottish Administration. There are a number of rent guarantee schemes across Scotland, operated by universities, local authorities and charities, that can help tenants who are unable to make use of other alternatives to access rented accommodation. A quicker and more cost-effective alternative would be to consider strengthening those avenues of support. I ask her not to move amendment 535.

We have engaged with the PBSA review group—

Again, that is something that the group is discussing at this stage. For me, it is important that we get the review group’s conclusions. I have reflected on what is being said today about where members are at stage 2. The point that I have been trying to make all the way through this is that the PBSA review and implementation group is already doing some of that work. Rather than agreeing to amendments at stage 2, and before anything is brought forward at stage 3, it is important that we have consultation with that group. That would allow me to conclude where we are with the amendments and, more broadly, where the group is on the amendments.

Amendments 85 to 89, 91 to 93, 98 to 101, 107, 108 and 110 to 115 would remove sections 1 to 20 of the bill. They would collectively remove the provisions of the bill that provide for the establishment of rent control areas and associated rent controls. With the exception of amendment 107, each of those amendments would significantly impede the implementation of provisions of the bill relating to rent control areas.

Although I recognise that Meghan Gallacher has concerns about the provisions that allow for the establishment of rent control areas, the Government is committed to making provision for that, as we recognise that people who rent their homes are more likely to live in poverty, be financially vulnerable and live on low incomes, compared with those who own their home either outright or with a mortgage.

The rent controls that are provided for in the bill are just some of the measures that we are taking to improve lives and work towards achieving our goal of ending child poverty in Scotland. Rent controls will support tenants to remain in their homes by helping to keep rents affordable. Rent controls exist in most European countries, and they allow for investment in the buy-to-rent, mid-market and private rental sectors. Our proposals achieve a balance between rent controls and allowing for investment in the sector.

Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 107 would remove the power in section 13 to exempt properties from rent controls. I support that amendment, because the power in section 13 can be removed in consequence of my amendment 329, which will be considered in a later group. My amendment 329 seeks to move the power in section 13 into a different bit of legislation. As my amendment would insert the same power into that other legislation, the power in section 13 will no longer be needed. I therefore support Ms Gallacher’s amendment 107 on that basis.

I turn to the amendments in the group that seek to remove provisions of the bill that modify other rent control provisions. Amendment 116 would remove section 21, which provides that the rent payable for a private residential tenancy must not be increased during the first 12 months of a tenancy. Section 21 applies to properties that are not in a rent control area and to exempt properties that are in a rent control area. It provides tenants with the security of knowing that the rent that they have agreed to at the start of a tenancy will not increase during the first 12 months. Amendment 116 would remove that clarity and certainty for tenants, and for that reason, I cannot support it. I urge Ms Gallacher not to move amendment 116.

Meghan Gallacher’s amendments 117 and 118 would remove sections 22 and 23. Those sections make provision to ensure that, where a proposed rent increase is referred by a rent officer to the First-tier Tribunal, the rent will not be increased by more than the amount originally proposed. Under those measures, the rent would be set at the lower of either market rent or the rent increase proposed by the landlord. Again, those provisions would apply to properties that are not in a rent control area as well as to exempt properties that are in a rent control area.

Sections 22 and 23 are designed to address concerns about the current process, which enables a rent officer or the First-tier Tribunal to increase the rent to the open market rate, even if that is higher than the rent increase proposed by the landlord. Without those changes, tenants may be reluctant to pursue their right to refer a proposed rent increase for independent adjudication. I cannot support amendments 117 and 118, which would remove that additional protection for tenants.

I therefore encourage members to support amendment 107, but I urge Meghan Gallacher not to move her other amendments in the group. If any of those amendments are moved, I urge members of the committee not to support them, for the reasons that I have set out.

No. With some of the amendments that have been lodged, there are a number of issues that the group has not been asked to look at. With some of the amendments—those that were lodged at a late stage—the group has not been asked to look at those. Hence my suggestion of a further discussion with the review group going forward.

I appreciate that, convener.

On the amendments, given the work of the PBSA review group, I ask Mr Greer not to move his amendments 548, 549, 559 and 560. If any of the amendments are moved, I ask members of the committee not to support them, for the reasons that I have set out.

I have offered to meet individuals and the group collectively, as well as the PBSA review group, which includes major stakeholders. That has been offered.

That point has been mentioned. It is up to the Government to decide what it will do, depending on the results of the analysis. I take cognisance of the point that you made about the only way to make changes being through amendments at stage 3 of the bill.

The consultation in respect of the notice period involved student and provider surveys. The results of that are being analysed. When we see those results, the Government will come to a position, and it is important to consult the PBSA sector on that. The survey results will affect what that position will be.