Seòmar agus comataidhean

As I mentioned, it is about the fact that no formal agreement is in place between the tenant and the landlord or agent, which might discourage that.

I will touch on number of points—I was going to come on to income, which is just one of the requirements. I am happy to engage further on that particular point with Ms Duncan-Glancy.

I am happy to further engage with Graham Simpson on the drafting and the point that he has made.

Ross Greer’s amendments 191, 192, 192A, 197 and 198 seek to devolve responsibility for the setting of council tax for unoccupied dwellings. I agree in principle with the proposal to remove caps imposed on the variation and modification of council tax for unoccupied dwellings. The Government is committed to delivering a fairer housing and taxation system. In line with that commitment, we worked closely with local government, through the joint working group on sources of local government funding and council tax reform, to deliver the first council tax premium on second homes from 1 April 2024.

Local authorities should have greater flexibility in relation to the council tax that applies to unoccupied dwellings in their areas. The pressures that are associated with second homes vary significantly across Scotland. In some areas, second homes reduce housing availability and, in others, they might contribute to local economies. Such decisions are best made by local authorities based on the needs of their local communities.

Amendment 191 would remove a cap on increasing council tax for unoccupied dwellings by means of regulations under section 33(1) of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003. I agree with that and ask members to support the amendment.

Amendment 192, along with amendments 192A, 197 and 198, would remove caps on powers to vary or modify the application of council tax for unoccupied dwellings. Although I agree with that, I cannot support the amendments because they would also impose duties on the Scottish ministers to exercise powers in a particular way. However, I offer to work with Ross Greer ahead of stage 3, with a view to removing the cap on the power of local authorities to modify the application of council tax.

Ross Greer’s amendments 462 to 464 and 478 would commit the Government to a revaluation and modify valuation plans used for council tax purposes. There is broad agreement on the need for council tax reform, but views differ on how it should be reformed. The Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have announced a joint programme of engagement to build consensus on long-term council tax reform. A revaluation exercise might look different depending on the form that that ultimately takes.

I am happy to engage with the member on that particular point. On the complex issues that are there, we need to work with Revenue Scotland.

No. We need to encourage them. We know that there have been issues with landlords and foreign students who have come here, and we have all had casework about it. It should be made as easy as possible for foreign students to come to and reside in Scotland. We also need to recognise where landlords sit in relation to the issue. Again, I am sympathetic to the point that we are looking at. We should be working to engage with the sector to progress that and to make the system as easy as possible. The sector is looking at the issue.

Amendment 540, in the name of Ross Greer, would enable students living in PBSA to bring their contract to an end with either seven or 28 days’ notice, depending on when the accommodation agreement started. A 28-day notice period would reflect the notice period in the mainstream PRS. The amendment reflects the temporary emergency legislation that was introduced in response to Covid.

Although I understand the purpose of the amendment, I cannot support it. The Scottish Government led a review of purpose-built student accommodation, working with a multi-agency group, the outcome of which contained 11 recommendations. Those covered issues such as regulations, supply and affordability in the PBSA sector. The recommendations are currently being progressed—I come back to the point that I made to Mr Greer earlier. Further consultation on notice periods has been undertaken by way of student and provider surveys; the results are currently being analysed.

In addition, a PBSA agreement is a very different type of agreement. Voids in PBSA can only be filled by students, which is difficult to do in the middle of the academic year. Amendment 540 would have a substantial impact on the current operation of PBSA, with the possibility of higher rental costs for students and an increase in affordability issues.

I come back to amendment 536, in the name of Maggie Chapman, which proposes to gather more information about non-UK domiciled students and tenancy deposits. The amendment provides for the use of regulatory powers.

There are practical issues with obtaining the data sought. Tenancy deposit schemes do not currently collect any information from tenants that would enable them to establish whether a tenancy deposit protects a non-UK domiciled student, and placing a requirement on the schemes to collect that data would be a significant change, with resource and cost implications.

I have concerns about the proposed enabling regulations. Placing restrictions on the amount of tenancy deposits that can be lodged by a non-UK student might also result in the unintended consequence of landlords choosing not to let their properties if they cannot obtain sufficient security over them. I also have concerns about treating non-UK students differently, as there is a need to ensure a fair approach for all students. I therefore ask Maggie Chapman not to move amendment 536.

We recognise that. It is part of the discussion that we have had with the PBSA review group in terms of what it is looking to do about the issue. It comes back to engagement.

I am sympathetic to Maggie Chapman’s intentions, but we need to engage with the sector on the work that is already being done. It is important to engage with the sector and the work of the PBSA review group, and to recognise the work that the sector is already doing.

Yes.

The debate has been really interesting in terms of the consensus that has emerged. I will touch on suggested ways ahead, but I will first speak to individual amendments and touch on the points that have been mentioned.

Amendments 51 to 59 and amendment 75, all in the name of Graham Simpson, and amendments 59A and 59B, in the name of Maggie Chapman, have the effect of including student tenancies in rent control measures.

Amendments 427 to 439 and 441, all in the name of Edward Mountain, support the inclusion of student tenancies in rent control measures through the creation of a new process to increase rents within student tenancies. The measures would have an impact on the PBSA sector and on university halls of residence.

Although I understand members’ concerns about the affordability of student accommodation and the calls for rent controls that could apply in rent control areas to also cover student tenancies, there are significant concerns about that approach due to its lack of alignment with how the student accommodation sector operates in practice. I therefore do not support the amendments that have been lodged by Graham Simpson, Maggie Chapman and Edward Mountain, but I will touch on a suggested way ahead later.

Student accommodation provision operates on a different basis from the wider private rented sector, taking account of the needs of students. As a rule, students seek accommodation for a fixed period, covering the academic year, at a fixed cost. That is unlike the wider PRS, in which tenancies are open ended and must be brought to an end by the tenant or the landlord. That is reflected in the business model of PBSA and university accommodation providers, which align move-in and move-out dates with the academic year. PBSA is not generally rented to those who are not students during term time, and university halls of residence are generally rented only to students of the institution in question during term time. As such, student accommodation cannot be considered as part of the wider supply of rented housing that is available to all tenants.

In addition, rental costs for PBSA and university halls of residence usually cover more than just rent. As a result, generally, student accommodation costs are not directly comparable with mainstream rents.

Based on feedback from the sector, the five-year assessment period would allow us to leave sufficient time for rent levels to stabilise, and, as we always aim to do, would provide certainty for landlords. We have previously engaged with the sector through the private rented sector review group. There is also an on-going consultation process, which we will continue with.

Apologies, I am trying to find my place.

On amendments 94, 95, 96 and 97, having rent control in place for shorter periods of time could also create uncertainty for landlords about whether more frequent decisions would apply in their area. The bill provides a number of checks and balances, as Scottish ministers will have a duty to keep rent control areas under review in order to ensure that they remain proportionate, and to vary or revoke the regulations if they are not proportionate. That approach would allow for a shorter duration of rent control, where appropriate. Therefore, I urge Meghan Gallacher not to move amendments 94 to 97.

Amendment 69, in the name of Graham Simpson, would oblige all local authorities to establish rent boards, regardless of whether there is a rent control area within the local authority area, although the rent boards would have certain functions only if a rent control area was in place. Although I agree with the importance of monitoring the operation of any legislation, establishing 32 local authority rent boards would be costly and, arguably, disproportionate, given that some local authorities may not have a rent control area in place at a given time. Many of the functions of the rent board, as set out in the amendment, are already provided for in the bill. Section 11 requires ministers to keep rent control areas under review. The bill also includes regulation-making powers that would allow ministers to specify properties that should be exempt from rent control, or circumstances in which a modified rent cap should be applied. The bill would also require Scottish ministers to consult before the powers are used, and regulations under those powers would be subject to parliamentary oversight. The same level of scrutiny would not be applied to the functions of a rent board.

I note the intention that rent boards should support tenants with any appeal to a rent officer or the First-tier Tribunal. Although those processes are designed to be accessible, I recognise the intent in Graham Simpson’s amendment 69 and will continue to consider how to best support his amendment. I would be happy to engage with him in that respect. However, I do not consider that creating another statutory body is the best approach to delivering what he intends. For all those reasons, I cannot support amendment 69, and I urge Mr Simpson not to move it.

I urge Rachael Hamilton not to press amendment 203. I also urge her not to move her other amendments in the group, Meghan Gallacher, Carol Mochan, Maggie Chapman and Graham Simpson not to move their amendments, and Edward Mountain not to move amendment 143. I urge committee members to support amendments 278, 279 and 280 in my name, as well as amendment 142, in the name of Edward Mountain. I urge the committee not to support the amendments in the group in the names of Rachael Hamilton, Meghan Gallacher, Carol Mochan, Graham Simpson and Maggie Chapman and Edward Mountain’s amendment 143, if they are moved, for the reasons that I have set out.

In terms of where the issue was 15 months ago, the Government accepted the recommendations and has been working with the sector on how they would be implemented. The important point for me is how they would be implemented. That is the point that I am trying to make on the further consultation that would be required. They were accepted, because it was an independent review group, but the important part of the issue is how they would be implemented.

The principle of the recommendations and how they are implemented merits further discussion. The important point is how the recommendations would be implemented. The amendments, which were lodged at a relatively late stage after the PBSA review group reported, need to be discussed further with the group in relation to how the recommendations would be implemented. I ask members not to move the amendments, but to continue to work with me and the sector on the issue. I am happy to have discussions about individual amendments, but I think that it would be collectively advantageous for us all to meet with the PBSA review group to discuss that as we look forward.

I say to members that, whether they want to move their amendments at this stage or not, it is important that we have discussions about the implementation of the recommendations, and that we further discuss the amendments with the review group. I am asking members not to move their amendments in the group at this stage, but, as I said, I am willing to engage with members, either individually or collectively, along with the PBSA review group, regarding the actual implementation of the recommendations.

Amendment 183, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, responds to concerns about difficulties that students in purpose-built student accommodation have in providing a suitable guarantor. Although the amendment is well intentioned, it could inadvertently make things more difficult for students, particularly foreign students and those from poorer backgrounds, to find accommodation, increasing their risk of homelessness. That is because a guarantor and advance rent are options that can be used to facilitate a let where the prospective tenant is unable to demonstrate sufficient income or creditworthiness. I ask Jeremy Balfour not to move amendment 183.

Amendment 407, in the name of Edward Mountain, would increase the maximum limit for tenancy deposits from two months to three months for international students who are not required to provide a guarantor. I understand that there can be barriers for international students to accessing the PRS, such as the difficulty of providing a UK-based guarantor. However, the introduction of an increased deposit amount in place of a guarantor requirement is unlikely to be a sufficient reassurance for private landlords where a prospective tenant is unable to sufficiently demonstrate income or creditworthiness without a suitable guarantor. Careful consideration would also need to be given to ensure a fair approach for all students and the amendment does not strike that balance. I therefore ask Edward Mountain not to move amendment 407.

Maggie Chapman’s amendment 535 would require ministers to establish through regulations a public body to act as a guarantor for non-UK domiciled students. I am sympathetic to the outcomes that she seeks to achieve, but it would be a complex issue, and there would be on-going financial implications for the Scottish Administration. There are a number of rent guarantee schemes across Scotland, operated by universities, local authorities and charities, that can help tenants who are unable to make use of other alternatives to access rented accommodation. A quicker and more cost-effective alternative would be to consider strengthening those avenues of support. I ask her not to move amendment 535.