Chamber and committees

I absolutely see where the member is coming from. That said—and I fear that I might be repeating this quite often this morning—regardless of whether I think that it is the right or the wrong thing to do, the place for it to happen is not within the bill. The consultation will allow those exact points to be brought up and discussed so that we can then move forward with regulations. Members might well hear me say that quite a lot with regard to different amendments in a number of groups this morning, but that is exactly why we are having the consultation and asking those open questions. It will allow those matters to be brought forward. I hope that Mr Johnson will forgive me for not being pulled on that particular point, but I think that what he has raised is a matter for the consultation.

Amendments 65 to 68 and 80, in the name of Graham Simpson, would allow for rents to be raised above the level of the rent cap, where the landlord has incurred significant costs relating to the maintenance, repair or regulatory compliance of the property. The rent officer would be tasked with determining the appropriate rent where the costs are deemed to be necessary and significant, but the amendment does not set out what maintenance, repairs or regulatory compliance would be covered or the basis on which that determination should be made. Again, I very much recognise the concerns expressed by landlords on the potential impact of rent controls on maintenance costs and their ability to invest in improving and sustaining quality properties. It is important that those issues are considered further, which is why they are covered in the aforementioned consultation.

Therefore, I cannot support the amendments, and I encourage Ben Macpherson, Graham Simpson and Daniel Johnson not to move them. If they do so, I urge committee members not to support them, for the reasons that I have set out. It remains my position that the circumstances in which it would be appropriate to allow for rents to increase above the cap should be set out in regulations that are informed by the consultation, but I hope that I have managed to offer some reassurance to Mr Macpherson, Mr Simpson and Mr Johnson that I very much recognise and acknowledge the issues that they have highlighted in their amendments and that we are actively considering how to address them through the consultation. I would, of course, be happy to engage with members following the consultation’s outcome.

Amendment 147, in the name of Edward Mountain, and amendment 412, in the name of Katy Clark, seek to amend the bill to require that the rent cap be calculated with reference to the quality, state of repair and energy efficiency of a property. I have responded to calls from the sector to provide greater certainty on how rent controls will be implemented by bringing forward a suite of amendments that provide a formula on the face of the bill for a fixed rent cap and which, if approved, would render amendments 147 and 412 obsolete. I consider that setting out the rent cap in primary legislation is needed to offer more clarity to tenants and landlords, and to those who invest in and develop rented homes. For those reasons, I cannot support the members’ amendments, and I urge them not to move amendments 147 and 412.

Amendments 207 and 215, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, seek to make changes to the definition of the term “rent payable”, specifically to exclude utilities. Amendment 207 would make that change for the purposes of the application of the rent cap, which could allow landlords in a rent control area to increase charges for utilities without any regulation. The amendment of the rent cap to a fixed formula would impact on the amendment itself, making it redundant.

Amendment 215 would make the change for the purpose of the provisions in the bill that regulate rent increases in rent control areas, but that would conflict with the existing definition of rent in the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016. That would lead to different definitions of rent, depending on whether a property was or was not in a rent control area, and therefore would cause confusion.

I acknowledge the concerns that have been raised by landlords, particularly in rural areas, about the potential impacts of rent controls where tenants pay the landlord directly for certain utilities or services. As has been set out, the bill already includes regulation-making powers that allow for circumstances in which landlords could raise rent above the cap. Our current consultation on the use of those powers acknowledges that rural landlords might face higher utility costs and asks for views on how such costs could be treated. Again, I am happy to engage with Rachael Hamilton and other members following the outcome of the consultation; I hope that that will reassure her, and I urge her not to move her amendments.

The amendments in Paul McLennan’s name in this group—that is, amendments 281 to 301, 327, 332 to 353, 393, 398, 401, 402 and 406—deliver on our commitment to provide clarity on how rent control will be implemented by setting out how rents will be capped in areas where the provisions apply. I am clear that it must be done in a balanced way that recognises the interests of landlords and tenants, and in a way that continues to support investment in private rented housing. That will ensure that the system of rent control that is introduced continues to support the supply of rented housing, in recognition of the fact that the rented sector is a critical and important part of Scotland’s overall housing system. The amendments have been lodged in direct response to calls for more clarity on the impact of areas designated for rent control.

Amendments 289A, 290A and 293A, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would enable a rent control area to be increased in size via regulations that vary the original designation. I consider that, where the rent control area is to be increased in size, that should be considered as creating a new rent control area and should be subject to the full process for designating such an area. For that reason, I cannot support the amendments.

Amendments 332A to 332H, also in the name of Maggie Chapman, seek to amend amendment 332 in Paul McLennan’s name. Amendment 332A would amend the permitted rate to be the lower of CPI inflation plus 1 percentage point, or annual percentage changes or expected changes in income. Amendment 332B provides that an alternative lower percentage could be set by the Scottish ministers in specified circumstances under new powers confirmed by amendment 332H, while amendment 332F provides a definition of the term “specified circumstances”. Amendment 410 provides for the new power inserted by amendment 332A to be subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 332C sets out the definition of the terms used in 332A, while amendments 332D and 332E seek to amend the definition of “the latest index” in amendment 332 so that it covers the latest index “or figure” published before the tenancy starts or the rent increase notice is served.

For the reasons that the Minister for Housing has already set out in the Government’s response to the committee’s stage 1 report, we recognise that there are benefits in ensuring that increases in rent control areas are linked to increases in household incomes. However, wages are only one component of household income, which might also be affected by hours worked or by other sources of income, such as self-employment, benefits and assets. In addition, average wage inflation might not reflect the differing trends that are experienced specifically by tenants across the workforce. The costs to landlords of offering a property for rent are also a crucial consideration, and measures of wage growth are unlikely to fully reflect them.

It is also vital that the rent cap can be clearly communicated. The CPI is a well-known metric, and adding in various measures of wage growth would complicate the rent cap formula without their being directly connected to changes in household incomes. I therefore consider the consumer prices index to be the most appropriate basis for the rent cap.

I will try to go through the main points that have been raised. I thank all members for the discussion, particularly on the Government amendments.

I will deal with the aspects that Meghan Gallacher raised about concerns over the removal of consultation. If the rent cap is included in the bill, as we intend it to be, there will be no need to consult on it, because it will have already been included in the bill.

Amendment 327 is technical.

Turning to issues raised by Katy Clark and others, I absolutely appreciate that there is a need to tackle the disrepair that exists in the private rented sector. As members will know, we will come on to discuss other groups of amendments that also deal with the issue of disrepair and the general standard of the private rented sector, where that is poor. I think that there are other ways of dealing with the challenge that Katy Clark has rightly put forward, and I am happy to continue to discuss the overall issue with her—and, indeed, with the other members who have raised it with me both today and previously—both in the run-up to stage 3 and in relation to the other groups that we will come on to.

Much of what Rachael Hamilton has discussed today is referred to in the current live consultation, so I very much recognise where she is coming from. The Minister for Housing has also agreed to engage with Scottish Land & Estates over the summer on the same aspects, so I am taking the issue that she has raised very seriously.

On the substantive issues that Maggie Chapman has raised about the rent cap formula, although I think that she and I are in exactly the same place in wanting to protect the most vulnerable tenants, this is one of those areas where I fundamentally disagree with her. I believe that we cannot protect the most vulnerable by creating a system that puts off investment and therefore the delivery of more homes—there is a balance to be struck between what we do to protect tenants and ensuring that we encourage investment and the building of more homes.

I hope that I can reassure her that repairing standard compliance would not be included in those circumstances in which rent could be increased above the cap, as set out in the consultation. Others might have different views on that, and I appreciate that the consultation is on-going, but, as I am sure will come through in that consultation, there is a discussion to be had about landlords making improvements to meet the sector’s minimum standards and those who might be investing heavily in modernisation or different types of work. As I have said, I am sure that those nuances will come through in the consultation.

As for having discussions on the formula that has been set out, I am happy to get back to and discuss the matter with Maggie Chapman before stage 3. However, according to the material that I have today and which I can highlight in these closing remarks, although CPI and wage growth can fluctuate relative to each other over time, the post-war experience has been that wages tend to grow faster than inflation in the long run. The 6 per cent cap also protects against situations, such as the recent cost of living crisis, in which a spike in inflation causes real wages to fall sharply. I go back to my point that the area needs to be clearly understood. I think that, at this point in time, this will just have to be one of those areas on which Ms Chapman and I will continue to disagree.

Amendments 148, 149, 158 to 160 and 185 in the name of Maggie Chapman would collectively enable the Scottish ministers to designate the whole of Scotland as a national rent control area in certain circumstances.

Introducing rent controls interferes with the property rights of landlords and any interference must be proportionate. A national rent cap might be difficult to justify due to the varying social and economic circumstances across the country. The way that the amendments are drafted means that the safeguards for normal rent control areas would not apply. Without those safeguards, it might not be possible to impose a national rent cap that is proportionate.

The measures in the bill will create the framework to deliver a nationally consistent approach to the consideration of the need for rent control, while maintaining the link to local circumstances. That is an appropriate, robust way to deliver rent control in Scotland. Although I acknowledge that there could be circumstances in which the Scottish ministers might wish to consider wider temporary rent control measures, their powers under Maggie Chapman’s proposed amendments would be far too broad.

Our vision for a long-term system of rent controls that delivers a nationally consistent approach with flexibility for local circumstances is key. Should action on rents be required where there has been significant change in rent levels or in the rate of rent increases in the period between the five-yearly cycle of local authority assessments, there are already powers in the bill for local authorities to carry out an additional interim assessment of rent conditions in their area or for the Scottish ministers to direct a local authority to undertake such an assessment.

Were such extreme circumstances to arise in the future to necessitate a blanket national rent cap that would apply regardless of local circumstances, that would be a significant intervention, and it would not be appropriate for that to happen only through regulations. Such action should be subject to the full parliamentary scrutiny that is afforded to primary legislation, as was the case with the emergency legislation that was introduced by the Government in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

I therefore cannot support amendments 148, 149, 158 to 160 and 185. I urge Maggie Chapman not to press amendment 148 and not to move those other amendments.

Amendments 186, 196 and 199, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would, essentially, reintroduce the temporary modifications to rent adjudication that were set out in the Rent Adjudication (Temporary Modifications) (Scotland) Regulations 2024, which expired at the end of March.

Although I recognise the good intent behind the amendments, and the desire to protect tenants from unreasonable in-tenancy rent increases, I cannot support them.

The temporary modifications were developed specifically to support the transition away from the emergency rent cap, which was introduced under the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Act 2022. Those temporary changes were part of that transition and were aimed at preventing a return to market rents in a single step where a tenant sought a review. They were not designed—indeed, they would not have been able—to operate until rent control becomes operational.

Amendment 319 seeks to amend section 15 of the bill to provide definitions of the terms that are used in the amendments that I have described, and amendments 320 and 321 are consequential amendments, which seek to reflect the new arrangements for information requests that are made by the Scottish ministers.

Amendment 322 will provide the Scottish ministers with a power to modify section 15 to change the information that might be sought by a local authority or the Scottish ministers. That will provide flexibility to adapt the data that is collected to suit changing circumstances, should existing information no longer be necessary or should new information be required. Amendment 394 will subject those regulations to the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 323 seeks to allow for information sharing between local authorities and the Scottish ministers and between individual local authorities, and it clarifies the purpose for which information can be shared and seeks to minimise the number of requests that are made of landlords.

Amendments 324 and 325 seek to remove and replace sections 16 and 17, which currently provide enforcement mechanisms for a local authority when a landlord fails to comply with a request for information or knowingly provides false information in response to a request. The replacement sections that amendments 324 and 325 provide take account of the new powers to request information that are being conferred on the Scottish ministers.

Amendment 326 will provide the Scottish ministers with a power to request information that is held in a local authority’s landlord register to enable them to carry out their functions and to assist local authorities in carrying out their functions under part 1 of the bill. Contact information for landlords and letting agents will allow the Scottish ministers to collect the data that they will be allowed to collect under the amendments that the Government has lodged.

Amendment 328 will enable the Scottish ministers to use the data that is collected to conduct research, to publish statistics or to encourage others to do those things, and it will enable the processing of the information that is received from landlords so that anonymised statistics can be published. I hope that that will reassure Meghan Gallacher, Edward Mountain and Carol Mochan in respect of their amendments in relation to making data publicly available.

The collection of information from landlords is critical to the implementation of rent control. The Government’s amendments will strengthen the ability to collect the relevant information from landlords, thereby assisting local authorities in undertaking their assessments of conditions in relation to rent and in reaching a recommendation on whether rent control is appropriate.

On the other amendments in the group, amendments 3 to 6 and 8, in the name of Emma Roddick, would, alongside her consequential amendments 7 and 9 to 20, make it a duty for all landlords—of whom there are almost a quarter of a million—to provide all the information that is listed in section 15(2) of the bill

“within 28 days of being entered into the local authority’s landlord register,”

and

“thereafter at such frequency as the local authority may determine”.

The amendments would allow any local authority to request any further information and would remove the purpose for which such information can be requested, and they would place a significant administrative burden on local authorities and landlords to collect and provide data. They would also remove the discretion of local authorities to seek the data that they deem necessary in the context of the local circumstances in their area.

I thank Alexander Stewart for that intervention—he is right to say that we must look at the practicalities. The intention of the Government’s amendments is to ensure that we have a robust set of data that will allow rent control to function effectively and efficiently. Regardless of whether members agree with rent control, the fact is that, if the bill is passed, we need the system to work effectively and efficiently, so we need to collect enough data for it to be robust. However, we are also required to ensure that we take a value-for-money approach and that we take cognisance of the impact on individual landlords, because we do not want to put them off entering or staying in the private rented sector.

I thank Emma Roddick for that intervention and for all her work in this area. As I have just said to Alexander Stewart, I am keen to ensure that we strike the correct balance, and I am keen, too, for local authorities to have the powers to collect the necessary data to ensure that the legislation works effectively.

I take Emma Roddick’s point and acknowledge that she still has concerns about gaps and about the system not being robust enough. Indeed, that is exactly why I made the invitation that I made at the start of my opening remarks—I want to ensure that, regardless of where we end up with this discussion and with the amendments that will be voted on today and later this week, if concerns remain, we can have discussions about ensuring that we have robust data and a system that works effectively. I take the member’s point and, as I have said, I recognise that she remains concerned about the issue. We can certainly pick the issue up in discussions with local authorities over the summer.

Moving on, I thank Emma Roddick for lodging her amendments, and I appreciate the concerns on which she has based them. However, I have my own concerns about the proportionality of her amendments and about the resource burden that having to collect information from landlords on an on-going basis would place on local authorities. Therefore, I cannot support the amendments, but I hope that I can discuss the issues and work with her—and, indeed, local authority colleagues—on them over the summer.

Amendment 109, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, would require the Scottish ministers to publish information that is collected under section 15. I recognise the usefulness of making data available—indeed, amendment 328 has been lodged to support the publication of information—but I do not consider it necessary or cost effective to publish each individual piece of information that is collected, so I cannot support Meghan Gallacher’s amendment. I come back to the principle of ensuring that we are not creating an overly complex or bureaucratic system that does not deliver value for money.

On the basis that Meghan Gallacher and I are keen to ensure that there is clarity on a number of issues in the bill, will she join me in recognising that the Government and—I hope—her party do not want to include purpose-built student accommodation in the bill? If anything has caused that to happen, I hope that members will be able to work together to rectify that at stage 3, if required.

I hope that Willie Rennie heard me say in my remarks that I take the issue very seriously.

The points that he has raised are exceptionally important and have been made directly to me by the sector, loud and clear. I am keen to pick them up at speed in the consultation to provide clarity, just as I hope that I did last Thursday during portfolio questions, when I was absolutely clear that the Scottish Government has no intention of doing anything in the bill to bring in the PBSA sector. Indeed, if anything was done on that basis in last week’s committee meeting, we would work with members to seek to amend that at stage 3.

Meghan Gallacher has made a useful point about what can and should be in the public domain. It is important that we open up the information and data that are collected—indeed, that is why the Government has lodged the amendments—and I look forward to her taking part in the discussions over the summer to ensure that we test the system. It is important that we are able to test it before stage 3 to ensure that members who still remain concerned about, say, the system not collecting enough information or it collecting too much information and being overly cumbersome can come and have that discussion with me. They will then be able to come back with amendments at stage 3, should they so wish.

Amendment 137, in the name of Emma Roddick, and amendment 237, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would increase the potential financial penalty on landlords for failure to comply with requests for information from £1,000 to £10,000. However, I note that my amendments 324 and 325 seek to remove and replace sections 16 and 17, as a result of information-gathering powers being conferred on the Scottish ministers by amendments in the group. Similarly, Maggie Chapman’s amendments 324A and 325A seek to increase the relevant penalty to £10,000. Unfortunately, I cannot support the amendments, as I consider that they set a penalty that is too high in the context of a landlord’s conduct. I still believe that £1,000 represents a more proportionate penalty.

On that basis, I ask Emma Roddick and Maggie Chapman not to move their amendments and to work with me ahead of stage 3 if they still have concerns on the issue. From the work that the Government has done on the matter, I remain convinced that the penalty is at the right level.

Amendments 153 to 155, in the name of Edward Mountain, seek to make changes to the type of information that can be sought from landlords. I understand the purpose of the amendments, but I consider that amendments 305 to 313, in Paul McLennan’s name, provide a more comprehensive expansion of the list of information that can be requested from a landlord. The list that is proposed in amendments 305 to 313 is more consistent with the information that is collected by rent service Scotland to support decisions on rent adjudication. Amendments 305 to 313 are therefore more appropriate in the context of the information that is needed to support rent control, as they will deliver information that is more closely comparable with the data on advertised rents that rent service Scotland collects.

Amendments 156 and 157, in the name of Edward Mountain, would mean that the information that is requested by local authorities would be added to the landlord register. The primary purpose of landlord registration is to give councils a means to assess whether an individual is a fit and proper person to let property. I do not believe that adding that information to the landlord register would assist local authorities in making that assessment. The amendments could result in inconsistent information being held on different landlords, depending on whether a landlord has received a request for information. The amendments would also require further consequential amendments to the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004.

Although I acknowledge the intent behind the amendments and recognise that there could be benefits to using the landlord register as part of the data collection process, it is important to emphasise that the proposed changes would place significant additional burdens on landlords and on local authorities as operators of the landlord register. I do not consider that they are necessary in connection with rent control, and I believe that they could inadvertently make a fundamental change to the purpose of the landlord register without due consideration of the impact on its core purpose, which is ensuring that someone is a fit and proper person to be a landlord. Therefore, I cannot support the amendments.

Amendment 448, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would amend the bill to change the discretion of a local authority to a duty, which would mean that every local authority in Scotland would need to write to every landlord on the register to request all the information that is set out in section 15(2) of the bill. As I have previously set out, although I understand and support the strong desire for robust information about tenancies, I cannot support the amendment. It would remove the discretion of local authorities to seek the data that they deem to be necessary, and it would be costly and disproportionate to the level of data that is needed to inform rent control assessments.

Amendments 449 and 450, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would provide for data to be obtained from landlords for the purpose of being provided to the rent officer or the First-tier Tribunal to assist them in determining open market rent. It is not clear that that information is needed by rent officers or the First-tier Tribunal, as they already make determinations of open market rent without access to that information. It is also uncertain how such a process is intended to operate or how often information would be needed for that purpose. That would place an additional burden on local authorities, with potentially significant costs and no clear benefit, and I am unable to support the amendments.

Amendment 481, in the name of Carol Mochan, would require local authorities to provide the tenant with a copy of the information that they have obtained from a landlord. Although I recognise the intention behind the amendment, it would add a significant additional administrative burden and cost in relation to the collection of data. The concern is about the accuracy of the information that is provided by the landlord, but there are already powers in the bill for local authorities to request information from tenants. I therefore cannot support the amendment, as I do not believe that it is needed.

Amendment 482, also in the name of Carol Mochan, would remove the ability of the Scottish ministers to remove information from the list of information that can be requested from a landlord. That would remove the flexibility that the power was intended to create, and it would mean that primary legislation would be required to remove from that list any information that is no longer considered relevant. Regulations under section 15(7) are subject to the affirmative procedure, so there would be parliamentary scrutiny of any attempt to reduce the information that can be requested. I therefore cannot support amendment 482.

Finally, Carol Mochan’s amendments 483 to 486 would amend sections 16 and 17 of the bill to remove elements of discretion from the enforcement procedures behind the duties on landlords to provide information. Those amendments would remove an element of discretion from local authorities and, in certain cases, would create strict liability for a financial penalty, even when the First-tier Tribunal considered such a penalty to be inappropriate. I therefore cannot support those amendments.

Sections 15, 16 and 17 of the bill were drafted with the intention of ensuring that the powers for local authorities and the Scottish ministers support the collection of data on a proportionate basis and do not unnecessarily burden local authorities, landlords and tenants. My amendments in the group seek to enhance those powers while respecting the rights of landlords.

I understand the intent behind the amendments in the group, but I cannot support them, for the reasons that I have set out. I therefore urge Emma Roddick, Maggie Chapman, Edward Mountain, Carol Mochan and Meghan Gallacher not to move their amendments in the group and to work with me ahead of stage 3. If any of their amendments are moved, I ask members to oppose them and, instead, to support the amendments that have been lodged in the name of Paul McLennan.

I move amendment 303.

This group of amendments relates to the provisions in the bill that create a power for Scottish ministers to exempt certain properties from rent control by regulations. Although I cannot support the amendments in the group that have been lodged by other members, I agree with the importance of ensuring that full consideration is given to the circumstances in which it might be appropriate to make exemptions. That is why we published a consultation on the use of the powers to ensure that the impact on landlords and tenants of any exemption that might be provided for in regulations is fully understood.

I repeat what I said earlier: I am completely convinced of the need to use powers in the bill to exempt, where appropriate, certain categories of property from rent control and to allow rent increases that are above the level of the proposed rent cap in certain circumstances. Members have already raised many compelling arguments for that. However, that must be supported by consultation that ensures that the impact of such measures is fully understood and that our actions do not create any unintended consequences, taking into account the views of everyone who has an interest.

With reference to amendments in the group, our consultation asks specific questions about possible exemptions for mid-market rent and build-to-rent properties. Alongside that, there are opportunities for landlords who do not see their circumstances reflected in the specific questions to give us their views, and for tenants to give us their opinions on how the proposals will impact on them. We will consider all those points as they are proposed in the consultation.

I turn to amendments 329, 330 and 331 in the name of Paul McLennan. Amendments 329 and 331 will have the effect of moving the power to define an exempt property in section 13 of the bill so that it appears in other legislation alongside the rent controls to which it relates. That flows from previously debated amendments that would replace the power to set a rent cap in section 9 of the bill with the provision for a rent cap in the other legislation. The relocation of the power would make obsolete the existing power to define what is an exempt property in section 13. Therefore, I support Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 107, which was debated earlier, because it would remove the resulting obsolete section of the bill.

Amendment 330 will make a technical correction to the bill to change part of the title for the new part 4A of the 2016 act from “excluded” to “exempt”.

I turn to other amendments in the group. Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 102, Edward Mountain’s amendment 150 and Willie Rennie’s amendment 329A would create a duty for Scottish ministers to define an exempt property by affirmative regulations. However, those regulations cannot be made without the approval of the Scottish Parliament, meaning that compliance with the duty would not be entirely in the gift of Scottish ministers. I agree that it is essential that exemptions are provided for, but imposing that as a duty on Scottish ministers is not the right way to progress that. Accordingly, I urge members not to press or move amendments 102, 150 and 329A but, if they do so, I urge members of the committee not to support the amendments.

I turn to Meghan Gallacher’s amendments 103, 105 and 106, Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 208 to 212 and 566, Mark Griffin’s amendments 411 and 416 and Willie Rennie’s amendments 329B to 329D and 329G to 329I. Collectively, the amendments set out potential exemptions from rent control in the bill, covering properties that are let by subsidiaries of landlords, including those delivering mid-market rental properties, built-to-rent properties, properties that are subject to improvements, including energy efficiency, and properties that have been offered for rent at below-market rates. Although I absolutely understand the reasons behind the amendments, I do not think that such properties should be included as exemptions in the bill. The reason for that approach is that exemptions must be fully informed by consultation with stakeholders so that they are framed in a way that ensures that they disapply rent control in the appropriate circumstances and do not capture circumstances in which rent control should apply.