Chamber and committees

Amendment 427 seeks to insert a part called

“Student residential tenancies: rent variation instigated by landlord’s notice”,

and a section called

“Landlord’s power to increase rent”.

Amendments 427 to 439 all relate to a similar issue. They seek to bring student residential tenancies and purpose-built student accommodation into line with private residential tenancies regarding the landlord’s power to increase rent and the protocol to be followed. As I have described, they are part of a wider group of amendments whose purpose is to include PBSA when dealing with the determination of rent in the First-tier tribunal. I believe that my colleague Edward Mountain is seeking to bring those amendments back at stage 3, so it would be helpful to hear what the minister thinks about amendments 427 to 439.

Edward Mountain’s amendment 407 proposes a different approach to the tenancy deposits of students who are non-UK domiciled from that which we have just heard about from my colleague Maggie Chapman. In my view, we are facing huge issues when it comes to not only student accommodation but the ability of students who move across Scotland or the UK to find that accommodation. Amendment 407 sets out that landlords who let to overseas students without a UK guarantor should be able to increase the deposit to

“three times the monthly rent”.

Again, that is to secure accommodation for students who are moving across the UK in order to find a university place and accommodation close by as well.

On the amendments that my colleague Graham Simpson has set out, I agree that amendments in relation to students must be included in the bill. It is evident from the committee’s stage 1 report that students have not been front and centre in the bill. However, we are experiencing so many different issues in relation to students who are trying to find good accommodation and affordable rents that we must seek to improve the bill in that area.

As Rachael Hamilton said, amendment 133 would create a layer of protection for rural areas in which a rent control area is introduced. The local authority would conduct an assessment to highlight

“the impact that the level of rent and rate of increase in rent payable under relevant tenancies of properties has on properties, tenants and landlords”.

The minister must put the needs of rural Scotland front and centre as the Government seeks to change the private, voluntary and independent sector. He will, of course, be aware that rented housing is vital to many of our rural economies, particularly in attracting workers to an area for seasonal work in sectors such as tourism, farming and forestry. The debate on rent controls has been heavily focused on urban areas, and that needs to change. Rural communities could be at real risk if the Scottish Government fails to take those important sectors into account.

I believe that the chief executive of Scottish Land & Estates, Sarah-Jane Laing, summarised the situation well when she said:

“Between the start of 2022 and the end of 2023, across 18 local authorities with rural areas, 11 saw decreases in the number of properties available for rental.

With the Scottish Government now seeking to move forward with rent caps, it needs to fully understand the further detrimental consequences this could have on rural rental provision before bringing forward the stage 2 amendments.”

Therefore, in relation to amendment 133, I ask the minister what specific engagement he has had with rural housing stakeholders on the issue. Is he inclined to support my amendment, which I believe would strengthen the support for rural communities?

Similar to amendment 133, my amendment 90 would strengthen the bill by ensuring that impacts on rural areas were considered and that such circumstances were addressed in the Scottish Government’s guidance. If that amendment is not agreed to today, I would be keen to discuss those issues with the minister to see whether we can make sure that they are covered in the guidance on the bill.

I turn to amendments 81 to 84. The bill will require local authorities to make periodic assessments of their rental markets. The Scottish Government is seeking to amend the end of the first reporting period from 30 November 2026 to 31 May 2027.

The proposed policy will replace the current option for local authorities to make rental assessments for the purpose of requesting that the Scottish ministers designate a rent pressure zone with a mandatory requirement for local authorities to make rental market assessments and recommendations as to whether to create a rent control area. Many stakeholders are concerned about whether there is effective and robust data collection, which remains an obstacle to local authority private rental market assessments and reports.

Amendments 81 to 84 would change the reporting period for assessing rent controls by each local authority area from five years, as stated in the bill as drafted, to four years, three years, two years or one year respectively. I believe that five years could be an extensive period for reporting on the impact of controls, and I seek further discussions with the minister to look at reducing the timeframe.

Through amendments 94 to 97, I seek clarity from the minister as to why he has opted for a five-year expiry date for regulations that designate a rent control area—unless those regulations are revoked—and as to what consultation he has undertaken with the PVI sector on expiry and reporting periods.

I want to follow up on the points that Rachael Hamilton has raised. The minister will be aware that landlords do not operate in only one local authority area—they operate in one, two, three or however many local authority areas in which they have properties. If local authorities are not producing these reports at the same time, how will that work? What additional strain will that put on the housing sector and landlords in the PVI sector, who will have to provide data to local authorities in order for them to produce those reports?

My colleague Graham Simpson has done a lot of work on this area of the bill. He has been speaking to student representatives and student boards, as I am sure other colleagues have throughout the process. We know about these issues and have done so for quite some time. It is not something new that has been brought to the table that individuals were not aware of. I understand that the review group sets its agenda, but, given that there is a housing bill, various parts of which relate directly to students, as was outlined in the stage 1 report, is Graham Simpson as frustrated as I am that, after this section is concluded, we will not know what amendments the minister is seeking to work with colleagues on ahead of stage 3? What does that mean for the recommendations that have already been clearly set out by the review group? Where does that leave students at the end of the day? Does Graham Simpson have any suggestions or thoughts on that?

Although I understand the minister’s position and, indeed, the Scottish Government’s position, it is certainly not one that I support in principle. I believe that rent controls will punish the private rented sector when we need all sectors of our housing market to work together to provide safe and secure homes for people during a housing emergency. That needs to be worked on collectively, and the Government needs to be aware that, should it bring in rent control measures, landlords could leave the sector.

In addition to the points that I raised in my opening remarks, I believe that the Government has not taken into consideration the fact that, when rent controls were introduced previously, people waited significantly longer to find a property. Should rent controls not work—I have my doubts that they will—other options must be looked at to ensure that we do not decimate a sector that has already suffered at the hands of knee-jerk policies from the Scottish Government. I ask the minister to look at ways that we can naturally reduce rents by increasing housing supply across all areas of the housing sector.

I will leave my comments there, convener, but I press amendment 85.

Given that the IFS has raised concerns about the Government’s strategy for tax, can the minister expand on when we can expect to see a full strategy for taxation in Scotland? How will that apply to the housing sector, which we are discussing today?

Similar to Graham Simpson, I do not intend to speak to every amendment in the group, because I know that time is becoming precious.

My amendment 132 is a probing amendment on the land and buildings transaction tax. Scotland’s budget for 2025-26, which was published in December 2024, announced an immediate increase in the surcharge in land and buildings transaction tax on the purchase of second and rental homes from 6 to 8 per cent. The Scottish Conservatives were opposed to that.

Interestingly, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has—rightly—stated:

“Despite the publication of a Tax Strategy alongside the Scottish Budget, it is not yet clear what the Scottish Government’s vision for tax policy is—but increases to LBTT are not consistent with any economically sensible strategy.”

We are in that position with various taxes, and it is imperative that the Scottish Government finally comes clean as to what its tax strategy is and what it will be in the future. That will allow us to make clear assessments on what its thinking is and what its objectives are.

Amendment 132 would modify the land and buildings transaction tax to change the number of dwellings from “one dwelling” to “two dwellings”, thereby altering transactions relating to third homes. That would act as a partial relief on LBTT for smaller home owners. My colleague Rachael Hamilton will expand on the arguments about LBTT, as she has lodged amendments 224 and 225.

I want to pick up on the points that were raised by Ross Greer in relation to council tax. I agree with Graham Simpson that it is absurd that we use valuations from 1991. The committee has begun an inquiry on council tax, in which we have heard from various stakeholders and from the minister. However, not enough time has been afforded to the committee to undertake the inquiry or to reach a consensus on what the next stages of council tax reform would look like.

I understand why Ross Greer has lodged his amendments and he has articulated the points that he wishes to raise. However, the bill is not the correct mechanism to make those changes, given that it is such a wide-scale topic and that there are various different views on it, not just among political parties but among stakeholders and groups that would be impacted. A wider piece of work would need to be undertaken, not just by the committee—which we have already tried to do—but by the Scottish Government, which would need to decide whether to introduce legislation on council tax reform.

Does Rachael Hamilton agree that, with rent controls on top of such measures, it will tend to be smaller landlords who will leave the sector? In rural areas in particular, the measures will not allow people to utilise the homes for the local rural economy, which is very important.

We all accept that changes to homelessness prevention will have an impact on the provision of housing services and people who provide advice on homelessness. Jeremy Balfour and others have recently spoken about information sharing and the need for clarity from the Scottish Government on public bodies and how we begin to join up the system and streamline resource, not only in relation to homelessness data but so that any individual who is experiencing or is at risk of homelessness can share information and access any additional support networks that they might need.

In order to maintain that high-level and consistent service approach for anyone who is seeking help, advice or support when they are experiencing or at risk of homelessness, there needs to be a continuous professional development plan for key housing practitioners to ensure that they remain skilled and knowledgeable. I appreciate that housing services already have good training practices in place, and I am not attempting to patronise those who deliver them. However, the level of training that is needed when introducing the ask and act duties will expand throughout the many levels of public services, public bodies and person-facing services.

I have lodged amendment 1011 in order to probe the minister on how that training could be rolled out and whether it could take form in legislation or be followed up in guidance. I want to ensure that, when we introduce something new, such as the ask and act duties, the service is streamlined and all services are aware of what the duties mean for the person they are supporting who is experiencing homelessness.

I move amendment 1011.

This discussion has been helpful in relation to what is required for the pilot schemes, how they will work, how much they will cost and what additional pressures will be placed on local authority areas. This is a prime example of why such work should be undertaken before we look at legislative processes and bills, because we do not know the answers to those questions. We are in the unknown sphere regarding how things will look, what the challenges will be and what potential problems will arise in the pilot schemes. That being said, the principle is noble and I understand why the Government is progressing in this way.

However, Mark Griffin raised valid concerns about the financial memorandum. I stress to the Government that it should be realistic regarding how much the bill’s provisions will cost. As a former councillor, the minister will know the cost pressures that councils are under and how much of an undertaking the provisions will be—not just for housing departments but for all the wraparound public services that also play a huge role in housing service delivery.

The point that Jeremy Balfour raised about post-legislative scrutiny is crucial. I welcome the minister’s commitment to come back to the committee with updates on the pilot schemes. That will need to happen across the board. I would welcome the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee having that opportunity, given the increased service expectations that there will be on all our councils up and down the country.

The convener is aware that I will not press amendment 1012 on behalf of Alexander Stewart. Graham Simpson raised the point that, although we are debating and voting on amendment 1012 today, we are relying on an amendment that we have not yet discussed fully or voted on in order to make changes. The minister needs to reflect on that, because that amendment might or might not pass, but we need to ensure that we have amendments of that nature so that we can scrutinise and make sure that what we implement will change homelessness prevention and have positive results.

Amendment 1012, by agreement, withdrawn.