Chamber and committees

I turn to my colleague Edward Mountain’s amendments. Amendment 150 relates to Scottish ministers providing definitions of which properties are exempt within six months of section 13 coming into force. We need to have a measured approach that makes sure that exemptions for properties are brought forward within a suitable timeframe while also providing clarity to the sector.

Amendment 151, which has also been lodged by my colleague, would provide an important exemption in that it would exempt military accommodation from rent controls. Again, this exemption is a no-brainer and I hope that it will be in the feedback from the consultation.

Amendment 152 would exempt any property

“for which the tenant is an employee of the landlord.”

That will relate to many farms and rural dwellings, which should be taken into consideration. We need to make sure that family farms—or any farms—are thriving enterprises, so we need to consider exemptions in this area as well.

Like Katy Clark’s amendment 412, amendment 147 aims to allow repair works, improvements and any work relating to energy efficiency to be taken into account. The exemption would be calculated based on the level of work that is required. There is a strong argument for reference having to be made to the condition of the property, whether it is in a good condition or a bad condition, as that could provide an additional layer of protection for tenants. I am unsure at this point whether Katy Clark will move her amendment, but I think that she has indicated that she will not move it.

I am concerned by amendments 284 and 285, which will leave a loophole in the bill, as ministers will no longer have to consult the relevant local authorities, tenants and landlords on the form and level of the rent control measures that are being considered for proposed rent control areas. Amendment 285 will mean that, when designating a rent control area, ministers will no longer have to include the reasons for doing so, or the level of the rent control measure to be introduced in that area, in their report to the Parliament. That will remove an additional layer of protection from the bill, which would be vital should rent controls be put in place.

I also want to mention my upcoming amendment 107, which would remove exemptions. That relates back to the overall Scottish Conservative principle and stance that we are opposed to rent controls. It will be a bit odd to push for that amendment but to then talk about adding exemptions in subsequent amendments. However, given our overall position and stance, it is right that we try to remove sections on rent controls, but we recognise that, if rent controls are to be put in place, those exemptions would be an important part of the argument. There are certain areas that we want to be exempt from rent controls.

Of course, there is an on-going consultation on exemptions from rent controls. I have pressed the cabinet secretary to ensure that that consultation is concluded as soon as possible in order to provide reassurance to the sector.

We are in a housing emergency—I think that we all agree on that—and we need the private sector to bring in investment in order to build more homes. How are we going to tackle the housing emergency if we cannot have that investment in Scotland to build more homes and get people into them? Surely there is an argument that, if we build more homes, that will naturally reduce rents.

We have known for some time that the Government was considering bringing rent controls into the sector, so why was the consultation not carried out prior to this stage of the bill? Will the cabinet secretary reassure the sector that the consultation will go on for only as long as it has to and that exemptions will be made clear as soon as possible?

I realise that this could look as though I am making an intervention through an intervention, but I am still none the wiser as to which MSPs that would include, which amendments have been completely thrown out, and which amendments the minister is likely to work on with MSPs. As a voting member of the committee, I am unclear as to the direction. Therefore, in my view, it is unclear how committee members should vote and whether ministers are willing to work alongside colleagues on amendments, or whether the Government is suggesting that it would oppose the amendments.

I thank the minister for agreeing to support Edward Mountain’s amendment 142. I believe that it is a step in the right direction to ensure that the Scottish ministers must issue guidance to all local authorities on rent conditions reports. That is a way to strengthen the bill, and I will therefore move amendment 142 on behalf of Edward Mountain.

As the minister pointed out, Edward Mountain’s amendment 143 would mean that the guidance would have to include provisions about “eligible reasons” for rent controls. I believe that the proposal in the amendment to look at the scope for introducing rent controls in specific local authority areas or across the board is sensible. We need to tease out some of the reasons why rent controls may or may not be brought in. Edward Mountain would welcome the opportunity to work with the minister on that ahead of stage 3.

That is all that I have to say on Edward Mountain’s amendments but, before I finish, I want to raise a concern about the lack of attendance from members who want to be here. Because his committee meets at the same time as this one, Edward Mountain has not been able to attend today. I know that the Parliament is currently talking about the processes and functionality of committees but, if the proposed heat in buildings bill, for example, reaches this committee, it will have a heavy focus on net zero and energy, which relate to another committee that meets at the same time as this one. I hope that that can be reflected on, because there are members who want to attend the committee to speak to their amendments.

It will not come as any shock to members to hear that the Scottish Conservatives are opposed to rent controls in principle, as we believe that they will further harm an already delicate housing sector. This stage 2 consideration is critical for the potential of new investment in purpose-built rental accommodation in Scotland. The changes that we make at committee and at stage 3 will shape the housing sector’s future.

Scotland must be investable—otherwise, the Parliament will collectively fail to provide enough supply to meet demand in future. The pipeline of new-build rent projects is now frozen, and there has been a 0 per cent increase in the number of planned projects over the past year. Build-to-rent construction activity has fallen by 26 per cent over the past year, as schemes already under development have been completed. Schemes and planning have stagnated due to uncertainty, and investors remain unwilling to commit to new schemes.

Build-to-rent is an investment opportunity, and it should be additional to the delivery of private homes for sale and affordable and social housing. It is an opportunity to significantly boost housing supply that has been frustrated by years of sudden policy interventions by the Scottish Government and uncertainty on the long-term system of rent controls.

To put the issue into perspective, Scotland has delivered only 3,485 build-to-rent-led schemes in more than a decade. That compares to 122,279 completed and operational homes in England during the same period. We are in a housing emergency—Parliament has declared a housing emergency—so we cannot afford more ill-thought-out policies such as permanent rent controls.

I appreciate that committee members might not agree with the position that I am laying out to remove rent controls. However, I believe that this is an opportunity to have an open discussion in which we talk about opportunities to grow the mixed-tenured housing that Scotland desperately needs.

Rent controls will not sufficiently address issues that the private rented sector faces. My concern is that billions of pounds’ worth of investment into new-build homes will be held back due to this move. On that point, I need only refer to the last time that rent controls were introduced. According to a survey by the Scottish Association of Landlords, 17 per cent of landlords said that they had sold their rental properties or were considering selling them.

Rent controls have discouraged landlords from investing in the upkeep of their rental properties. According to the same survey, 44 per cent of landlords have reduced or stopped spending money on maintenance and improvements since rent controls were introduced.

It has also become more difficult for new renters to find housing. According to the Scottish Government, since the rent control introduction, the average time that it takes for a new tenant to find a property has increased from 12 to 16 weeks. Reduced supply, a disincentive for investment, exacerbation of the housing problem and other unintended consequences could await the private rented sector as a result of rent controls.

For those reasons, I have lodged the amendments in this group. I ask members to think carefully about the decision and what impact rent controls could have on those who provide housing, as well as about opportunities to ensure that we have enough housing stock for people who need homes.

I note that the minister has supported the removal of section 13, which relates to exemptions. That is probably the only area where we could find consensus in relation to rent controls being made permanent, but members will have lodged amendments on exemptions—I have done so, too. Through this debate, that issue must be made clear—we need to try to tease out from the minister what exemptions, if any, will be applicable and which ones he is sympathetic to.

I understand that there is on-going consultation on exemptions. I hope that the minister will realise that he has his work cut out for him in trying to navigate the issues and achieve a balance in the bill and its processes.

I move amendment 85.

What work has been undertaken to show that the period should be five years? One of the main reasons why stakeholders are concerned about permanent rent controls is the lack of data analysis and work in that field, so we do not know exactly what the impacts will be in Scotland. What impact assessments did the Scottish Government carry out before arriving at the period of five years?

Ross Greer has raised a really important point. It has been 15 months since the findings in question were published, and I note, too, that the stage 1 report of the Housing (Scotland) Bill was published on 14 November 2024. In both, concerns about these issues from students, student bodies and student representatives feature heavily.

Basically, we are collectively saying that progress has been very slow. I, too, am concerned that if these amendments are not at least considered, there might not be an opportunity to legislate to help to protect students. The minister needs to take the matter seriously and I hope that he will conclude that he will work with members on some of these issues and tease things out before stage 3.

Absolutely—but, again, that issue is in the Scottish Government’s bundle of issues that are too hard and too difficult to sort out that we have been dealing with for many years. I do not believe that we have sufficient time to examine what council tax reform would look like. As I said, the principle may well be supported. However, there needs to be a wider discussion about what that would look like and what the party positions would be. Legislation would need to be brought forward by the Government and parties would need to make their own considerations following that wider piece of work. I do not mean to take away from the work that has already been undertaken and the assessments that were concluded.

I will leave my comments there, other than to say that amendment 132 is intended to be a probing amendment on the LBTT.