Chamber and committees

I will briefly summarise. The Scottish Government is absolutely determined to bring forward Awaab’s law in the social rented sector and the private rented sector. The ways of doing it are different for those two sectors because of the legislation, but the end point for them is absolutely the same. I am happy to work with Mr Simpson on that in the run-up to stage 3.

I hope that Meghan Gallacher will be reassured that, although it is not a housing issue, there has been a recent consultation on extending the current provisions on combustible cladding to hotels and similar premises. The consultation closed on 7 March and the responses to it are currently being analysed, and the outcomes will be confirmed in the autumn. I hope that that picks up the point outwith housing, which is being looked at in that consultation. I am sure that relevant ministers will keep Ms Gallacher informed of that consultation and the Government’s response in due course.

Enforcement is incredibly important, because there is no point in having rights and obligations if those are not being enforced. As I will come on to say, I am keen to work with a number of members to see what can be done. Many of the improvement issues can be dealt with in a non-legislative way, and the conversations that I hope to have over the summer will also show whether there are gaps in primary legislation that we need to come back to. Enforcement measures, such as fines, may be something that we will have to come back to by using legislation.

Amendment 249, in the name of Daniel Johnson, and amendment 385, in the name of Ariane Burgess, would provide that a tenant could withhold rent payments when the landlord failed to meet the repairing standard. Although I agree that the landlord should always meet the repairing standard, such issues are already provided for in law. Section 26(2)(b) of the 2006 act already enables the First-tier Tribunal to make a rent relief order when a landlord has failed to comply with a repairing standard enforcement order. A rent relief order is one that reduces the rent by up to 90 per cent for the duration of the order.

Amendments 249 and 385 would both put the onus on the tenant to determine whether they could withhold rent, rather than having a judicial assessment of whether the rent could be withheld. That approach would create the risk that a tenant could be left with significant rent arrears to make up if they were to get the assessment of the repairing standard wrong, and I would be greatly concerned about that change. The existing rent relief process, under section 27 of the 2006 act, enables the First-tier Tribunal to issue a rent relief order. That mechanism provides reassurance to the tenant that the reduced rent will not have to be paid back at a later date and that they can legitimately pay less rent without any fear of later repercussions.

In my view, amendments 249 and 385, although exceptionally well intentioned, would not improve tenants’ rights.

I am just about to come on to that issue, too, convener. As I have said, there are existing tenants’ rights in relation to repairs and enforcement. The amendments that we are dealing with today and the discussions that I have had with members highlight the fact that those rights are meaningful only if tenants and relevant bodies know how to use them and if there are no barriers to using them. Convener, the point that you have made with that one example, which is just one of the many examples that we have discussed under this group of amendments, is an exceptionally important one.

It is important that, as long as we are looking at how the regulatory framework can be improved—for example, through primary or secondary legislation—we also look at what additional non-legislative support can be put in place. We can explore a range of options with the potential to better enable tenants to exercise their rights, such as raising further awareness of existing rights and providing routes of redress such as third-party reporting, where the local authority applies to the tribunal to enforce necessary repairs on behalf of a tenant. Other forms of practical support and advice are available to help tenants navigate the tribunal process.

I am keen to work with stakeholders and members to consider what additional interventions would be feasible and effective to achieve the policy objectives behind many of the amendments in this group. I still do not believe that primary legislative change is required here, but work definitely is, and I hope that that work will allow us to meet those policy objectives.

Amendment 254, in the name of Ariane Burgess, would provide Scottish ministers with the power to delegate to such a public body as they consider appropriate the function of providing officers under the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949 with the ability to do certain things, such as inspect workers’ accommodation. I recognise the need to ensure that accommodation for agricultural workers is fit for habitation, but I do not agree that amendment 254 would provide the reassurance that is being sought. It is unclear whether the amendment creates a function that can be delegated, and it is also not clear that wages officers under the 1949 act would have the expertise to enable them to inspect the standard of property, given that their main function relates to the wages paid to agricultural workers. Scoping work has been on-going to help us better understand the full context of the issue and potential solutions.

Local authorities are currently responsible for enforcement of legal housing standards. Enforcement generally happens on a reactive basis, when local authorities are made aware of concerns about the condition of property and can respond. Although local authorities would welcome stronger powers to address poor agricultural seasonal worker accommodation, enforcement would pose challenges for local authorities. The Government is fully committed to further engagement with local authorities and other interested parties on that issue, and development work to understand how it can be addressed is on-going.

I therefore ask the member not to move amendment 254.

I will reflect on that exact point imminently, Mr Simpson.

Amendments 29 to 31, along with amendments 34 to 46, in the name of Willie Rennie, would collectively remove the restrictions on rent increases between tenancies and the means by which a tenant could enforce those restrictions.

The overarching purpose of the rent control measures is to protect the social and economic interests of tenants by stabilising rents in areas where market rents have been increasing particularly steeply. Allowing unrestricted rent increases between tenancies would undermine that purpose and would reduce the protection that rent controls can offer for tenants.

Allowing unrestricted rent increases between tenancies could also lead to a two-tier market, with a difference between tenants who move tenancies and those who stay in tenancies for longer periods of time. Tenants might remain in a tenancy for longer than they would otherwise have done, even when that tenancy does not meet their needs, because their existing rent is more affordable than open market rents for new tenancies in the same area. There is a risk that that could reduce people’s ability to access suitable rented homes and could reduce the ability of tenants to move if their circumstances change. It could also make it harder for prospective tenants to obtain a lease for a rental property in a rent control area.

I understand Willie Rennie’s concerns and recognise that some landlords are concerned about restrictions between tenancies, particularly in circumstances in which the landlord has not increased the rent during a tenancy, has made significant improvements to the let property or is facing increased costs in offering the property for let. That is why the bill already includes provisions for ministers to make regulations allowing for properties to be excluded from rent control or for rents to be increased above the cap. I hope that the fact that our consultation on the potential use of those provisions has been published reassures Mr Rennie and landlords that we are considering the most appropriate way to approach the issues. However, removing the restrictions on pre-tenancy rent increases is not an approach that I can support.

Mr Rennie’s amendments 32 and 33 would change the terms under which a property that is let under a tenancy is to be considered the same as a property that was let under a previous tenancy. Those amendments would provide that the question of whether a property is the same must include consideration of the extent to which the property has been decorated or renovated since the end of the previous tenancy. That could allow a landlord to raise the rent between tenancies without restriction if they have undertaken very minor redecoration or renovation to the property between tenancies, which would not be in keeping with the aim of rent control.

As I have said, the bill already includes provisions for ministers to set out circumstances in which rents may be increased above the cap. An area that is being consulted on is the use of those powers when a landlord has made significant improvements to the let property, either during an existing tenancy or between tenants.

I appreciate the challenge that Meghan Gallacher raises. She mentioned the on-going discussion and consultation on EPC standards, which is an important piece of work. I also recognise the challenge around some of those issues, particularly in rural and island areas.

Amendment 451, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would require the rent officer or the First-tier Tribunal, when making a determination of an open market rent as part of a rent adjudication, to have regard to information that is collected under amendments 449 and 450, which were debated previously. Amendment 449 would enable information to be requested from a landlord or tenant by a local authority for the purposes of providing data to support the determination of an open market rent under the Private Housing Tenancies (Scotland) Act 2016. Amendment 450 is an alternative to amendment 449, which would oblige the local authority to exercise the power.

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 it. It is also not clear from the amendments how such a process could operate or how often information would need to be collected for that purpose. It would not only place an additional burden on local authorities, but place them in the awkward position of supporting rent officers and the FTT in the adjudication of rent, which is a role that they do not currently fulfil. I cannot therefore support amendment 451.

For those reasons, I ask Rachael Hamilton not to press amendment 214, and Mark Griffin and Maggie Chapman not to move their amendments in the group. If they are pressed and moved, I ask members of the committee to oppose them.

I accept that there is a point to be made. That is similar to some of the discussions that we have had in previous groups on exemptions or reasons to increase rents above the cap. That is exactly why this area is in the consultation. I appreciate that landlords are concerned that they might, for example, be put off investing money to make major improvements to properties if those improvements were not to be recognised. I take that issue very seriously. I am keen to see what happens in the consultation—I am sure that that point will come through, based on the discussions that I have already had with landlords’ representatives.

However, I am clear that the circumstances in which it would be appropriate for there to be increases above the cap should be set out through regulations and that that process should be supported by our on-going consultation. Therefore, I cannot support Willie Rennie’s amendments 29 to 46.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 216 and 217, and the consequential amendment 227, would enable the Scottish ministers to prescribe circumstances in which the restrictions on the setting of the initial rent in a previously let property in a rent control area could be removed. The bill will already provide powers for the Scottish ministers to create exemptions from the rent control or to set circumstances in which the rent cap can be exceeded. Those powers will address the issue that Ms Hamilton’s amendments seek to cover. Therefore, I cannot support those amendments.

Due to the on-going consultation and the regulations that the Government has committed to make in short order, I urge Willie Rennie not to press amendment 29 or to move his other amendments, and I ask Rachael Hamilton not to move her amendments. If that is not the case, I urge members not to support them.

Amendments 29 to 31, along with amendments 34 to 46, in the name of Willie Rennie, would collectively remove the restrictions on rent increases between tenancies and the means by which a tenant could enforce those restrictions.

The overarching purpose of the rent control measures is to protect the social and economic interests of tenants by stabilising rents in areas where market rents have been increasing particularly steeply. Allowing unrestricted rent increases between tenancies would undermine that purpose and would reduce the protection that rent controls can offer for tenants.

Allowing unrestricted rent increases between tenancies could also lead to a two-tier market, with a difference between tenants who move tenancies and those who stay in tenancies for longer periods of time. Tenants might remain in a tenancy for longer than they would otherwise have done, even when that tenancy does not meet their needs, because their existing rent is more affordable than open market rents for new tenancies in the same area. There is a risk that that could reduce people’s ability to access suitable rented homes and could reduce the ability of tenants to move if their circumstances change. It could also make it harder for prospective tenants to obtain a lease for a rental property in a rent control area.

I understand Willie Rennie’s concerns and recognise that some landlords are concerned about restrictions between tenancies, particularly in circumstances in which the landlord has not increased the rent during a tenancy, has made significant improvements to the let property or is facing increased costs in offering the property for let. That is why the bill already includes provisions for ministers to make regulations allowing for properties to be excluded from rent control or for rents to be increased above the cap. I hope that the fact that our consultation on the potential use of those provisions has been published reassures Mr Rennie and landlords that we are considering the most appropriate way to approach the issues. However, removing the restrictions on pre-tenancy rent increases is not an approach that I can support.

Mr Rennie’s amendments 32 and 33 would change the terms under which a property that is let under a tenancy is to be considered the same as a property that was let under a previous tenancy. Those amendments would provide that the question of whether a property is the same must include consideration of the extent to which the property has been decorated or renovated since the end of the previous tenancy. That could allow a landlord to raise the rent between tenancies without restriction if they have undertaken very minor redecoration or renovation to the property between tenancies, which would not be in keeping with the aim of rent control.

As I have said, the bill already includes provisions for ministers to set out circumstances in which rents may be increased above the cap. An area that is being consulted on is the use of those powers when a landlord has made significant improvements to the let property, either during an existing tenancy or between tenants.

If Rachael Hamilton is keen to press amendment 214, I ask that we pause and use the opportunity between stages 2 and 3 to discuss with the Scottish Association of Landlords the additional administrative burden on landlords. It is the burden on landlords that I am particularly concerned about. I see Rachael Hamilton’s point about what the amendment is trying to achieve, but I am concerned about the administrative burden on each individual landlord.