Chamber and committees

I thank the cabinet secretary for explaining why she will not support amendment 214, but I disagree with her. The point that she makes is about increasing bureaucracy and she believes that my amendment will do that. However, amendment 214 seeks to reduce bureaucracy. The provision of clear evidence by landlords will reassure tenants and that will avoid any unnecessary reference to the rent officer or the First-tier Tribunal.

Amendment 214 would amend the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 to require that a rent increase notice specified the reasons for the increase. That aims to improve our understanding of rental trends across Scotland and, therefore, to ensure greater accuracy for future housing policy decisions. As drafted, the bill requires local authorities to assess the level of rent that is payable in their area and the rate of increase, but not to specify why rent increases might or might not be happening. Amendment 214 would improve data collection and increase the awareness of overall trends in the rental sector. It would allow Scottish ministers to have a better understanding of the sector so that they can bring forward evidence-based policy decisions on issues such as rent control. Amendment 214 would also improve transparency and reduce the likelihood of a tenant referring to the rent officer a rent increase that is made without good reason.

We will support amendments 500 and 501, in the name of Mark Griffin, and we will also support amendment 451, in the name of Maggie Chapman, but I wait to hear her speak on her amendments 229, 258 and 266, which, at the moment, we do not support.

I move amendment 214.

Amendments 216 and 227 are consequential to amendment 217, which would ensure that any future exemption that is set by ministers would also apply when the initial rent for a new tenancy is set. That is a critical clarification, because the period between tenancies is typically when housing providers assess properties, carry out improvements and adjust rents. Because the issue of exemptions is one of the most scrutinised aspects of the bill, it is essential that their application at that key stage is made explicit. Amendment 217 would remove ambiguity and ensure that housing providers can confidently plan and invest, knowing how exemptions will apply when initial rents are set.

Okay—I accept that. However, if the cabinet secretary does not mind, I will take that in while I am speaking to the other amendments. I am keen to press the amendment because I believe that, at the other end of the scale, it will remove the burden of bureaucracy.

I listened carefully to Maggie Chapman, and I am slightly concerned that the blanket restrictions on setting initial rents would harm the private rental sector and tenants who might benefit from reduced rent agreements, for example.

On the point that my colleagues Graham Simpson and Meghan Gallacher make on the definition of quality, we know that the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 already provides for repairing standards that landlords must meet during a tenancy. When standards are not met, enforcement mechanisms can be used, and making further rent-setting controls is unnecessary and potentially counterproductive.

I have already indicated that I will support Mark Griffin’s amendments 501 and 500 and amendment Maggie Chapman’s amendment 451.

I will press.

Amendment 207 would provide much-needed clarity to references to “rent payable” under part 1 of the bill, on the

“designation of rent control areas”.

The amendment would introduce a clear definition of “rent payable”, which is essential to ensure that rent comparisons between properties are accurate and meaningful, especially in rural areas, where utility arrangements can differ significantly.

Under the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016, there is no distinction between rent and other charges. However, as the cabinet secretary has set out, in rural tenancies, rent often includes payments for water, sewerage or electricity services that are supplied privately due to the lack of mains infrastructure. Because the 2016 act prohibits passing on service charges, landlords often bundle those costs into the rent, which creates confusion.

I disagree with the cabinet secretary. She misses the point, because the failure to separate those charges for privately supplied services will undermine the accuracy of rental data and the fairness of rent assessments. She said that future regulation-making processes would make my amendments redundant. I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary would identify how we could separate those charges and ensure the accuracy of rental data, so that there is equity between those who receive the bundled charges that I have described and those who receive and pay for their services through council tax. As I have said, in urban areas, those services are normally paid for by the tenant directly through council tax or their utility bills.

Amendment 207 would ensure that only the true rent—the rent that is payable for the property itself—is counted as “rent payable”. Charges for essential services in areas without mains access would be identified separately, not hidden in the rent. That change would allow the collection of more accurate data across local authorities, fairer comparisons across the rental market, and greater transparency for both tenants and landlords.

I understand what the cabinet secretary is saying, but, with respect, the lodged amendments have been agreed in consultation with quite a number of those who are concerned that the exemptions should be brought forward without having to have a consultation.

I agree with Meghan Gallacher that we would like to see exemptions in primary legislation rather than wait for the consultation, which has been worrying the sector.

Amendment 208 would allow ministers to exempt properties from rent controls if significant upgrades, such as energy efficiency improvements, have been made. A crucial point to recognise is that a property before improvements is fundamentally different from the same property after upgrades. That transformation naturally warrants a revised rental valuation.

Why does that matter? It is because housing providers repeatedly told the committee that rent controls risk discouraging investment in property upgrades, as they fear that they will not be able to recover the costs. This exemption would solve two problems. First, it would give landlords a fair route to adjust rents when they have generally improved the property. Secondly, it would ensure that tenants will benefit from better, more energy-efficient homes.

Most upgrades happen between tenancies, and allowing reasonable rent adjustments during that window would create a clear incentive to invest in quality improvements. Rent controls should not be a barrier to better housing, and this exemption would turn them into a catalyst for upgrades to Scotland’s housing stock.

Amendment 209 would allow ministers to exempt properties from rent controls if they are let at rates comparable to social or local authority housing. Housing providers that offer rents in line with secure tenancies should be able to adjust them in step with local authority or social housing increases. Positive actions by landlords should be encouraged. Those rent levels are already well below market rates and in most cases any increases would still fall within rent control limits.

The exemption would act as a safety net, protecting providers that offer below-market rents from unexpected cost spikes, especially those that affect the wider social housing sector. It would reassure landlords who choose to charge low rents that they will not be penalised for doing so through rent control.

Amendments 210 would build on amendment 209 to expand the scope of rent control exemptions to include properties for which rent is already restricted for other reasons. It would cover cases like reduced rent agreements during periods of financial hardship—for example, the pandemic—or housing provided to a former employee at a peppercorn rate. Those are situations in which rent has intentionally been kept below market value for valid and often temporary reasons. The amendment would give housing providers a fair opportunity to reset rents to market levels between tenancies, ensuring long-term sustainability without penalising past goodwill. The amendment would also ensure that providers that have acted responsibly and compassionately are not locked into artificially low rents indefinitely.

Amendment 211 directly addresses a key concern that has been raised by stakeholders, which is that rent control risks driving out investment. We have heard a lot about that today, especially with regard to new housing developments, from large-scale build-to-rent projects to small rural developments that are specifically for the local rental market. The message from the sector was, again, clear: without confidence in a fair return, developers will walk away—the build-to-rent market has illustrated that in recent years as investment has been redirected away from Scotland. Amendment 211 provides that confidence.

Scotland’s housing crisis is driven by a shortage of supply—not by affordability. Amendment 211 recognises that reality and would ensure that the bill supports, rather than stifles, the delivery of new rental homes. In practice, it would give investors and developers a green light to build in the knowledge that their ability to recover costs and earn a return will not be undermined by future rent control measures. The result would be more homes, more choice, and a stronger rental market—exactly what Scotland needs.

Amendment 212 is consequential on amendment 209.

Amendment 566 is consequential on amendment 211. It clarifies what is meant by “build-to-rent property” and outlines that the exemption would apply for the first two years after the development of the property has been completed. Following last week’s committee proceedings, I updated the amendment to include within its definition of build-to-rent property rural properties that are built for rent under a relevant tenancy. That ensures that rural developments that are built exclusively for rent are explicitly encompassed by the definition. Such rural developments are usually built out of necessity and are rarely economically viable. Nevertheless, they are critical to boost the supply of rental housing across rural Scotland.

There is some dubiety about when the consultation will be concluded and published and when we will be able to see that; the cabinet secretary said that herself. I am thinking about what the situation will be if we do not move some of the amendments that we have lodged on exemptions. I know that we do not have the support of the Greens, but we may have other support. The concern is that, if we do not see the shape of the published consultation, we will not be able to bring forward the amendments at stage 3. That worries me slightly, because it is such an important aspect of the bill.

As I am sure that the minister will know from his constituency mailbag, there are people who want to buy properties that are in a state of disrepair but who are discouraged from doing so because they are concerned that they would be liable for ADS. Amendment 225 would provide an exemption for up to 12 months from the time of purchase to allow an individual to bring such a property back into a habitable state. Obviously, that would allow us to have more housing stock at a time of a housing crisis.