Chamber and committees

In many rural properties, landlords supply those services via private infrastructure and there is no alternative provider in the area. Utility costs are, therefore, often included as part of the rental change. There needs to be fairness in relation to geography. Does the cabinet secretary understand that not every area will be the same and that these issues have been brought to Parliament in order to create fairness in the sector?

Similar to my colleague Edward Mountain, I am concerned about amendments 60 and 61, in the name of the cabinet secretary. That concern is around the need for scrutiny, given the unpredictable nature of rent controls and what we have seen happen across the country in relation to the loss of investment when rent controls have been placed in certain areas.

I absolutely understand the point that Maggie Chapman is trying to make about local authorities and localism—about local authorities being able to make decisions about what is right in their own area—but this decision will impact whether more homes are built across the country, which is something that we, as MSPs, should be kept up to date on and be able to scrutinise. However, it seems that the Government will attempt to remove that from the bill this afternoon. I was reassured to hear that the cabinet secretary would not support amendment 136, in the name of Maggie Chapman. Again, I think that it is appropriate that the provision about the requirement for rent controls includes the point about it being “necessary and proportionate”. I believe that that is the right terminology when we are looking at this particular area of the bill.

We need to look at the full picture when it comes to rent controls and make sure that decisions are fully evidence based so that there are no unintended consequences for the rental market. I believe that, if Maggie Chapman’s amendment was passed, what would be implemented would be the opposite of the aims that she is trying to achieve on the back of this amendment. We need to look at everything as a whole.

On amendment 63, in the name of Màiri McAllan, again, I have raised the issue of fairness in terms of rent controls and the need to make sure that the bill is proportionate. Parliament has been waiting for the heat in buildings bill. Should extensive costs be associated with the current bill, I believe that landlords will find it harder to keep pace with rising costs, as rent increases would no longer be directly linked to improvements or specific features of their property.

I have raised with the cabinet secretary, when we have met, the need to incentivise landlords to keep them in the housing market to ensure that we have homes available for people to live in. I believe that landlords have faced significant financial losses and many, as we know, have left the market due to temporary rent controls. Increased regulation and hostility towards landlords will not result in ensuring that the supply of homes meets demand. For example, a Scottish Association of Landlords report revealed concerns that increasing regulation has led to a loss of more than 50,000 homes in the private rented sector. The decisions that we make on this bill will have a direct impact on our housing market in the private rented sector.

On amendment 64, the cabinet secretary took an intervention on this from me moments ago, but I go back to our argument in relation to rural properties and the comments that Edward Mountain made. I believe that if we do not back amendment 270, in the name of Mark Griffin, we will be creating a huge disparity between urban areas and rural areas when we look at the differences in how rent is collated. That would show that the Government is not standing up for rural areas. I therefore urge members to back amendment 270, in the name of Mark Griffin, and not to support amendment 64, in the name of the cabinet secretary.

Does that not highlight the problems with rent controls in their entirety? The fact that we are arguing about whether the power should lie with the Scottish Government or with local councils, and about the political make-up and political ideologies, shows that rent controls are going to have an impact on the sector and that, regardless of which way members vote this evening, there are going to be problems with rent controls.

John Mason has not pointed out what he would determine high rents to be. I am simply saying that, if we want to drive rents down, we have to make sure that there is a more ample supply of mixed-tenure housing up and down the country. That is a sensible and pragmatic point, and it explains the current state of the housing economy more generally. I hope that John Mason will look at that in relation to housing demand in his area, including how many people are looking for mid-market rent properties or for social housing, the latter of which we know has incredibly long waiting lists. I hope that that explains the position that I am trying to lay out.

Does the cabinet secretary understand that introducing rent controls in the way that the Scottish National Party Government has done in recent years has left the purpose-built student accommodation sector as the only fruitful market for investment? That is why the SNP Government should be extremely cautious in how it proceeds with rent control legislation.

That is a helpful clarification. I asked the question because I believe that it would not always be practical for landlords to carry out repairs in 14 days, as would be required if amendments 230 and 231 came into force broadly. Things such as seasonal holidays, weather conditions and rurality could impact on landlords’ ability to carry out repairs within that timeframe. However, I understand and agree that landlords must carry out repairs within a reasonable time and as soon as possible. I understand that we will soon vote on amendments that relate to damp and mould issues, which I hope will improve building standards for many people in the private and social rented sectors.

On amendments 300 and 301, which are in the name of Ariane Burgess, I am concerned that no permissions will be sought from the landlord directly even though they own the property. There are other processes that deal with concerns that tenants raise with rental properties, and I do not believe that it is appropriate for local authorities to effectively have more authority over landlords in respect of maintenance, safety and quality.

Although I do not believe that this was intended, I think that amendments 300 and 301 continue the rhetoric that I mentioned earlier regarding the demonisation of landlords, the vast majority of whom maintain their properties to the highest of standards. I welcome the member’s tone, which was different from the tone that we have heard from other members this evening. However, for the reasons that I have set out, we will not support her amendments in this group.

Following on from where Edward Mountain left off, although my amendments 278 and 279 are probing amendments they raise incredibly important points. The amendments that I speak to today I also lodged earlier, at stage 2. However, many landlords up and down the country still face a great deal of uncertainty about properties that they own that contain combustible cladding or RAAC. As we have discussed previously, like many homeowners, a lot of those landlords are in limbo over whether the Government will be able to provide them with financial support or remuneration and about what they can do to remediate their properties.

Edward Mountain is correct to say that when works are being undertaken while a tenant is living in a property, the rent is usually lowered. If rent control is brought into an area, the ways in which the landlord could bring the rent back up to market value will be limited. My amendment 278 seeks to probe the Government on how it will address that issue, should it arise if the bill passes at stage 3.

On the point about energy efficiency of properties, we still await a heat in buildings bill—we do not know what it might contain. I am concerned that, for landlords, extra costs will be associated with bringing their properties up to the standard that I assume will be set out in that piece of legislation. The Government must understand such associated costs, including the fact that it is even more expensive for landlords in rural areas, and for those with more complex properties, to bring their properties up to EPC level C or above. That absolutely should be considered.

I will touch on Maggie Chapman’s amendments 156 and 157. Removing exemptions would be a disaster for the housing industry, and especially for future investment opportunities. We are in a housing emergency, and the whole Parliament is agreed on what we need to do to address it. The solution that will get us out of that emergency is to build more homes. If we vote through legislation that prevents investment opportunities from coming through and homes from being built, we will not address the problems that we have all agreed exist up and down the country. It is essential to have clarity about exemptions to rent controls to ensure that we protect the supply of rented housing, given the diverse nature of the private rented sector.

Okay—we will have a debate. I will take one more intervention.

Amendments 271 to 277 and 393 would introduce a clear and consistent definition of a “relevant” landlord across all housing-related legislation, including the bill. The aim is to ensure clarity over responsibilities for compliance, particularly where residential tenancies exist in agricultural holdings or other arm’s-length ownership arrangements. The proposal addresses an issue that Scottish Land & Estates has raised repeatedly since the introduction of the landlord registration regulations. The bill is a vital opportunity to fix a long-standing problem to the benefit of all parties.

Current housing law, such as the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, does not recognise landlord-tenant relationships that are created under agricultural holdings legislation. That causes confusion, especially when tenant farmers sublet housing under private residential tenancy—PRT—arrangements. The workarounds that are set out in Government guidance are flawed because tenant farmers are currently advised to register as agents on the landlord register. However, that is inappropriate, because the agents are meant to act on behalf of the owner, whereas tenant farmers are not required to do so under agricultural holdings law. That ambiguity creates uncertainty about who is responsible for compliance with data collection, rent control, energy efficiency and housing standards.

Although the bill has been amended to address some areas that relate to data collection—I believe that we will have further discussions on that—it does not resolve issues of compliance with or enforcement of other regulations.

My amendment has benefits for all sectors involved. It gives local authorities accurate landlord registration and enforcement, and it ensures that the correct person is held responsible without penalising owners for actions that are beyond their control. It provides tenant farmers with clarity on their responsibilities and rights without compromising the entitlement to compensation that is payable to them by the owner for any improvements that are made to enable subletting. For residential tenants, the amendment provides clearer information about who is responsible for compliance and a straightforward route to consider any required remedies. For owners, it will increase confidence in allowing subletting, because they will know that the compliance status is protected.

Amendments 144 to 148, which are consequential amendments to amendments 271 and 277, would remove potential confusion from the bill about such matters.

I understand what Maggie Chapman is trying to achieve with amendments 275 and 140, but there are unanswered questions on their potential consequences. For example, amendment 275 sets out that the council may ask for data on a landlord’s property to allow an order maker to determine the open market rent. However, the big question is what happens if the landlord does not respond to the request, because the bill will say only that the council “may” request the data. That point is still very open to interpretation, so the amendments do not clearly set out her intent.

The Scottish Conservatives will support amendment 149, in the name of Emma Roddick, because it gives the Government the ability to look at legislation that would give councils and the Government the power to require landlords to provide information. I believe that there will be further consultation on the details, which will need to be set out via regulation. However, the proposal seems reasonable and should be explored.

In response to amendment 151, in the name of Graham Simpson, I agree that data collection is a vital part of the bill. However, there was an opportunity to attend a round-table discussion with the cabinet secretary. I was pleased to receive correspondence from the cabinet secretary about the measures that the Government will take on data. We should continue to engage with the Government to ensure that we get data collection in the bill right. If we do not get it right, it will have negative consequences for rent controls and our housing stock in general.

I hope that John Mason agrees that, in order to lower rents, we need to build more homes so that we have more supply to meet the demand across the country. That is the only way that we will get out of the housing emergency. We must learn the various forms of housing tenure that we need in order to determine the stock that we will require to have up and down the country. I note how diverse our communities are—