Chamber and committees

I share your concerns about the impact on SME developers in particular, and that we are potentially pricing them out of the appeals system. I might feel differently if developers were submitting appeals for every application that was refused and if those applications were all being rejected on appeal, but the figures show that more than 50 per cent are approved on appeal. I am worried that the fees could constrain the pipeline of housing delivery at a critical time. It would be right to ask the minister about those concerns.

That is right. I hope that colleagues will bear with me as I cover my amendments and those of two of my colleagues.

Amendment 221 replicates Awaab’s law for RSLs in Scotland and would give ministers the power to create regulations that entitle tenants to have repairs carried out to remedy hazards. Amendment 222 replicates Awaab’s law for private landlords.

I am aware that the Government and I have lodged similar amendments in that area. I am also aware that the legislative landscape in Scotland differs from that in the rest of the UK in relation to the obligations that are placed on social landlords to deal with potentially unsafe homes. My concern is that the repairs that are currently required by policy in Scotland should have the force of primary legislation and that, through regulations, ministers should make clear what an acceptable timescale for repairs is.

I am happy to work with the Government to ensure that stringent and enforceable timescales are set out in legislation. That is also the case for my amendment 222, which seeks to make sure that the obligations on the public sector to ensure that hazards in homes are repaired quickly are placed on landlords in the private sector. That forms part of our commitment to balancing the interests of tenants, who deserve to live in warm, safe and affordable homes, and of their landlords, who should be able to guarantee safe homes that do not put tenants and their children in danger of illness in exchange for a fair rent.

My priority in lodging amendment 222 is to ensure that landlords and housing associations define hazards that are to be fixed in the broadest sense possible, and that those hazards are fixed as quickly as possible. Awaab Ishak’s tragic death should never have happened. Although I appreciate that organisations such as the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations have reassured me that the more stringent policy regime in Scotland makes such a case more unlikely, I am brought cases as an MSP that have too many similarities to Awaab’s for me to be entirely comfortable with the status quo. We have discussed the issue many times. Many MSPs have the same constituency casework relating to damp and mould, and the issue is a huge concern for us.

Given what the cabinet secretary has said, I am satisfied that the Government and I—and, in fact, all members of the committee—are in the same place. I am therefore happy not to move my amendments today on the understanding that there will be further discussions between stages 2 and 3.

However, as the cabinet secretary pointed out, there is a problem between policy intention and delivery. We are still getting cases of horrific damp and mould in properties, which are affecting tenants and their children, and, in response to complaints, they are still often being told that it is their own fault. That is entirely unacceptable, and I absolutely hope that the Government will make good on its commitment to address the issue. On that note, I do not plan to move amendments 221 and 222.

I will comment briefly on amendments 249 and 490 in the name of my colleague Daniel Johnson. Amendment 249 would streamline the process for withholding rent in the event of a failure to remedy serious repairs, including window defects, central heating defects, water ingress and leaks. It provides that, if the First-tier Tribunal has determined that the landlord has failed to comply with the duty to meet the repairing standard, the tenant may withhold rent until remedial works are completed.

That would apply solely to properties to which the repairing standard applies and, therefore, not to Scottish secure tenancies. The amendment also provides that, where the tenant has withheld rent under this section, that is not considered as rent arrears for the purposes of the eviction grounds in schedule 3 of the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016.

I take on board what the cabinet secretary has said. Daniel Johnson has lodged amendments 249 and 490 as probing amendments to get the debate on the record and to get the cabinet secretary’s assurance on that point.

Amendment 490 states:

“An owner or occupier of a property in a tenement building must take steps (including, where necessary, notifying other owners and occupiers) to ensure that utility companies have access to any common part of the tenement building for the purposes of maintenance, repair or installation work.”

The key point here is the installation work. Daniel Johnson wishes to probe the Government and push it to consider the definition of “utilities” and whether it covers telecommunications, as I mentioned in my intervention on the cabinet secretary earlier. We have been approached by BT Openreach, which has a real concern that owner-occupiers and tenants who live in tenemented buildings are at real risk of missing out on the superfast broadband roll-out due to the restriction on access to carry out installations in common areas of tenement buildings.

I am reassured by the Government’s response that it will look at the issue more closely. I recommend that the Government starts a discussion with Openreach to see whether there is a way to reassure the organisation that there will not be a barrier to the roll-out of superfast broadband, particularly to tenemented buildings and buildings that share common areas.

Amendment 565, in my name, exempts mid-market rent properties from the rental increase frequency proposals. I appreciate that the Government has a consultation on exemptions. My amendment proposes an exemption that is more administrative than policy related. Its purpose is to smooth out the administration procedures for registered social landlords and their subsidiaries.

In the bill as introduced, a rent increase notice would be tied to a 12-month cycle that begins on the date that tenants start a lease. For some medium-sized to larger-sized RSLs, that would mean having to issue hundreds of updates throughout the year that depend on the lease start date of sitting tenants.

I hope that the Government can give me assurances from the exemption consultation that this is an administrative issue that can be smoothed over so that there is not such a burden on the delivery of mid-market rent properties. I hope that the landlords who are described in amendment 565 will be able to issue a single rent notice to all their tenants on one particular day of the year that is decided on by those landlords and their tenants—the date is normally 1 April. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to my proposal and how it might tackle the issue in the exemption consultation.

Amendment 422 would provide that landlords and tenants agree an inventory on the day that the tenancy starts. Providing an agreed inventory at the beginning of the tenancy would be beneficial for landlords and tenants alike. Not only would it ensure that the property was returned to its owner in its original condition, as it was prior to being rented out; it would also reduce the risk of deposit disputes arising at the end of the tenancy.

Tenants are more likely to have their deposit returned in full if what is expected of them is made clear at the start of the lease. If there is disagreement over the return of the deposit, an inventory can be used as evidence in a dispute, to prove the condition of the property prior to tenants moving in.

Amendment 422 would ensure that information and communication between a landlord and a tenant is as full and clear as possible, as that can contribute to a good relationship between the two and, in the worst-case scenario, can ensure that disputes are resolved using agreed evidence that can be referred back to.

Amendment 247, in Daniel Johnson’s name, would place a duty on landlords to provide information to tenants on the previous 36 months of rental payments before the tenancy commences, and amendment 248 would replicate that for the Scottish secure tenancy. The amendments complement amendments in a previous group, on where rents substantially fall behind the market rate as a result of not being increased over time, by giving incoming tenants assurance about what has happened in previous years, so that they can be persuaded that the increase back to market level is not coming off the back of previous rent increases. However, as the consultation on exemptions intends to cover those areas, Daniel Johnson does not plan to move this complementary suite of amendments 247 and 248.

Amendment 501 and consequential amendment 500 would exempt registered social landlords and their subsidiaries from the restriction on rent frequency increases during the first 12 months of a tenancy, regardless of when the tenancy began. The amendments are a practical move, which would allow for easier administration of housing association tenancies. If housing associations were required to set an individual rent rather than setting all mid-market rents once a year, different tenants could potentially be charged different rents, despite living in the exact same property in the exact same area, because prevailing costs and inflation rates would vary, depending on the time that the decision was made.

My amendments speak to the fact that registered social landlords and their subsidiaries are already subject to regulation and monitoring with regard to rental costs. The bill’s provisions would cause unnecessary administrative burdens. Keeping the current annual rent-setting process is preferable for such properties, as that allows for the consultation of tenants in the process, effective communication plans and considered board and management approval for new rent levels. Changing that would, in effect, limit housing associations’ ability to carry out those important practices, which benefit and protect MMR tenants in ways that typical private rented sector tenants are not afforded.

An April notice would align with other relevant economic adjustments, in line with the tax year. In essence, amendments 501 and 500 would stop multiple rent adjustments having to be carried out over the course of the year, depending on when a tenancy started, and it would allow RSLs to have a single rental increase for the year for all their tenants.

My real hand.

For

Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

Against

Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

I keep sticking up a digital hand and not remembering to lower it.

Our absolute priority should be to end the housing emergency by increasing supply across all tenures. Therefore, the debate and discussion around exemptions is particularly crucial, and anything that we do in the bill should be with the aim of not impacting on the supply of new houses. In including mid-market rental homes, there is a risk that efforts to regulate rent prices will have the effect of cutting off affordable housing supply and exacerbating the causes of the housing emergency.

I am satisfied that the Scottish Housing Regulator monitors and regulates rent in mid-market rental properties and their subsidiaries to ensure affordability and fairness, so I do not believe that subjecting them to the rent control measures under the bill will do anything to further deal with the symptoms of the housing emergency. Deterring investors could well exacerbate the cause. I am also satisfied that, through the lengthy rounds of consultation and evidence, and through the housing minister’s desire to meet and talk to housing providers, the organisations have successfully argued the point about the exemption of mid-market rent.

When we discussed the emergency legislation, there was acknowledgement that mid-market rent should not be caught up with that and that the issue would be addressed when it came to the permanent rent controls. Social and affordable housing, including mid-market rental properties and their subsidiaries, should not be caught by rent control provisions. Similarly, where Government grants require rents to be aligned with local affordable rents as overseen by the Scottish Housing Regulator, current affordability controls are more than adequate, so those types of properties should be exempt from additional rent control measures. That is what I have to say on amendment 411 on mid-market rent.

On amendment 416, which is in my name, the Government has already, in effect, conceded that the types of properties in the amendment should be subject to exemptions. In its consultation, it proposes exemptions for build-to-rent property, including single-family rental and mid-market rent schemes, alongside sensible carve-outs for properties that are let below market value or that are significantly upgraded or improved. The consultation document recognises that investment will not flow into a market that is limited by rent controls. Including build-to-rent properties in rent control measures is likely to exacerbate the symptoms of the housing emergency, rather than increasing the much-needed supply of houses across all tenures. That can be seen by the sharp decline in the number of properties, which is evident in figures that have been released today.

The arguments have already been fully rehearsed. There is no need to continue with the uncertainty surrounding this aspect of the bill. My amendment 416 seeks to define build-to-rent properties and to ensure that the sector is protected in as many tenures as possible. I appreciate that the Government is not opposed to the principle of the amendments but has expressed concerns that they could give rise to a legal challenge and that the issues are best addressed through the consultation process. I am happy not to move my amendments, with the expectation that the sector is provided with clarity on the issues before the final stage 3 vote.

I want to speak on Ross Greer’s tax proposals. I do not necessarily disagree with them—in fact, I agree with a lot of what he said about the ridiculous nature of having a 1991 valuation system and with a lot of his other points. I applaud him for his efforts. However, I simply say that what he is seeking to do with his amendments is to put a bill within a bill. The provisions could be included in a stand-alone domestic property tax bill, which would benefit from the level of scrutiny and engagement that such proposals need and deserve. Although I support the principle of what Ross Greer is trying to do, I think that the provisions need a legislative vehicle of their own, to get the proper scrutiny that they deserve.

Whether or not the Government introduces a bill in the remainder of this session is a moot point. You have lodged amendments to this bill, but you could have introduced your own member’s bill in the absence of Government action over the past 34 years. As I said, I support a number of the proposed changes in principle, but given the nature of the changes that we are talking about, they need to be debated and scrutinised in a bill of their own. It is purely for those reasons that I cannot support them as amendments to the bill. However, I applaud the work that Ross Greer has done to try to get the provisions into the bill.