Chamber and committees

No.

Indeed, how about the UK Government having an immediate impact on RSLs’ borrowing costs? Just today, during the debate, we have seen—yet again—a major lender saying that it is increasing its interest rates. That will have an impact on RSLs’ ability to borrow. I guarantee that that move was not a response to the Scottish Government’s emergency legislation; it was a response to the UK Government’s mini-budget.

Liam Kerr rose—

I do not believe that we have yet precisely modelled the revenue that would come to the Government through income tax. However, of course, many of the measures in the bill are subject to extension or potential early expiry if the economic circumstances change. For example, on prescribed limited costs, the percentages—50 per cent and 3 per cent—will be variable throughout the life of the legislation.

Before that intervention, I was talking about the impact on the social rented sector, and I said that it has not been immediately to reduce RSLs’ rental income. However, we want to give the social rented sector confidence that long-term impacts will be taken into account and that we share its priorities in relation to its fundamental purposes.

Social landlords exist for a social purpose. They invest not only in quality, affordable rented housing but in retrofitting, the net zero agenda and a wide range of other services. The Government shares that priority and understands the ways in which the sector is fundamentally different, in that rental income is reinvested for the public good—members have mentioned various other differences. That is why we have invited representatives of the social rented sector and others to participate with us in a short-life task and finish group that will inform how such measures are used in the longer term. The first meetings of that group have been productive and have recognised those circumstances. I genuinely believe that creative thinking is already being brought to bear on how we can go forward in a way that protects tenants without endangering those other priorities. [Interruption.] Presiding Officer, is there a problem?

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

RSLs are not-for-profit bodies. They exist to meet social need, and we share their priority of protecting public investments.

I want to move on to talk briefly about the private rented sector. There have been claims—I am not sure that they are justified—about a direct impact on supply. Over the years, there has been an improvement in the quality of regulation of the private rented sector. At the same time, that sector has continued to expand. I have here a quote from Springfield Properties, which is a build-to-rent business that recognises that the proposed temporary measures are

“designed to support families facing fuel poverty this winter”.

It goes on to say that it continues to believe that

“the delivery of PRS housing offers a viable revenue stream in the longer term”.

I am not sure that I agree with the idea that short-term regulations would fundamentally change the long-term viability of the sector.

Elena Whitham was right to point out that several countries in Europe have more regulation than we have, with long-standing rent control systems; they also have a thriving rented sector, including through private investment. There is an analogy with the scaremongering that was brought in when people first debated a minimum wage; some of those arguments were clearly born out of self-interest and they did not come to pass. In many ways, the arguments around rent controls are similar.

There is a wider question. If we do not do this—if we do not accept responsibility for controlling some of the eye-watering rent increases that some of our constituents have faced just because we believe that that is how the market works—we will leave our constituents in a simply unacceptable situation. It is clear that the cost crisis is felt here and now by people who rent their homes, and we are determined to take action to help people keep a roof over their heads during a crisis that is not of their making.

The bill that we have introduced presents a package that is impactful, practical, radical and robust. Its purpose is to offer increased protection to tenants who are more vulnerable to the cost crisis than others are. By including safeguards that address the specific, defined and limited circumstances that some landlords will face, the bill recognises that the cost crisis can impact them, too, and it also builds a bridge towards our longer-term work on a new deal for tenants.

In conclusion, many of the important points that members have made today have been heard, and I am grateful to the members who made them. I am also grateful for the time that the committee took this morning to consider the bill, and I look forward to the discussions continuing as members debate it over the rest of the week.

I do not expect the member to accept this point, but I put on record one more time that, had we voted for that amendment and had Parliament passed it, the rent freeze would not be in place—the bill would have gone to court and been struck down, and we would have done nothing but harm.

It has been—shall I say?—a lively and wide-ranging debate. The differences of views and the divergence of values among members have been well expressed. Some criticisms and concerns about the bill have been expressed seriously, and I will try to address those. Others have been a little more on the silly side. In particular, I find it difficult to take seriously Murdo Fraser’s accusation that we are only doing this because we thought that it was clever politics. That comes from the party that thought that it was clever politics to abolish the top rate of taxation, until it realised that everybody outside of Tufton Street was revolted by the values behind such politics.

Briefly.

I will give way to whoever asked for an intervention.

To put this in the kindest possible tone, surely the member can see some slight differences between what was proposed as an amendment to the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill, which was a blanket two-year rent freeze with very little legal justification, and the much more substantive, well-worked-up proposal that is before the chamber this week?

I will take an intervention from Katy Clark and will try to come to Miles Briggs later.

Given Mr Fraser’s very passionate concern about supply, I am surprised that he has not whole-heartedly welcomed the measures that we have taken in relation to short-term letting, which has siphoned off what should be proper, affordable homes for people into, in effect, untaxed hotel businesses.