Seòmar agus comataidhean

As was highlighted—I think by Mark Griffin—this is a really important section of the bill. The conversation has been helpful, including the exchange between Willie Rennie and the cabinet secretary and the points that other members have made in rightly raising concerns about exemptions not being in the bill itself. I still believe that certain exemptions should be in the bill and that there should be further consultation to allow for other exemptions to be considered thereafter.

However, I understand that, given the position and the direction of travel of the Government and the fact that the consultation is live, we should wait to see what responses are received to the consultation. I am sure that the sector will feed into the Scottish Government what exemptions it wants to see in secondary legislation. I hope that the Government takes notice with regard to exemptions and the sector’s concerns about ensuring that it is protected in order that we do not stifle investment, so that we can get on with building more homes and tackling the housing emergency. Tackling the housing emergency is what we should be debating and what I would expect a housing bill to be about. However, I feel as though we are unpicking bits of that debate because of the discussions that we are having in the committee about the amendments that members have lodged.

Oh—an intervention on an intervention. Of course, cabinet secretary.

I lodged amendment 102 to strongly show what my party believes should be contained in the provisions on exempt properties, in case my amendments to remove part 1 of the bill should not be agreed to. Of course, I lodged the amendment before the consultation on exemptions on rent controls went live.

The bill provides that

“The Scottish Ministers may by regulations define, for the purpose of section 9(3), what is an exempt property.”

Amendment 102 would alter the provision from “may” to “must”. I suspect that the cabinet secretary will ask members to vote down the amendment if pressed. However, I still have concerns about the process of exemptions, and moving the amendment provides me with the opportunity to put them on record.

Not including exemptions in primary legislation and setting them out in secondary legislation means that there will be fewer opportunities for MSPs to debate and expand the list of agreed exemptions following the conclusion of the exemptions consultation. At best, the housing sector, as it stands, will need to rely on the cabinet secretary deciding what exemptions are preferable, which means that some important options could be left out—although I hope not. That is why several colleagues have lodged amendments to this section of the bill. I do not believe that the provisions in the bill are the best way to move forward. I would have preferred to have seen exemptions in primary legislation, which would have given a stronger signal to the sector that protections from rent controls will be in place. Secondary legislation is also easier to amend.

I seek reassurance from the cabinet secretary that the issue of exemptions will be taken seriously and that all responses from stakeholders will be considered when the Scottish Government begins to scrutinise consultation findings. The sector needs clarity. I hope that the cabinet secretary understands how important this section is to the future of the housing sector and to securing future investment to build more homes.

The issues that we debated last week are also important. As Graham Simpson outlined, following last week’s committee meeting, I had the opportunity to meet the cabinet secretary and to have initial discussions on how we move forward with the legislation, particularly with regard to exemptions and other issues that were debated last week. We need to reflect on last week’s meeting as we move forward. The bill is complex, and it is important that the Government outlines its position on the issues that members raise at stage 2.

I go back to the exemption element of the bill. My party does not believe that rent controls are the answer. We need to ensure that all groups that will be impacted by the legislation are taken into consideration, and that includes those who provide homes in the private rented sector.

Amendment 103 would ensure that social landlords or a subsidiary of registered social landlords are exempt from rent controls. I think that this amendment is a no-brainer, and I hope that social landlords will be at the top of the Scottish Government’s list for exemptions. Social landlords provide affordable housing to many people across the country, and, in the case of councils, rents are set by councillors. The rents accrued are usually placed into a budget that is invested in carrying out repairs, maintenance and aesthetic work relating to exterior and interior design, which benefits tenants as well as the reputation of councils.

To expand on the point that I have raised previously, my concern about exemptions is that, in many cases, the housing sector will need to wait until the consultation has concluded, the findings have been analysed and the results have been brought forward in a plan. That could further stifle development, which is not what we want to see. It is imperative that members think about that today when looking at exemptions and consider whether they believe that, out of the list of amendments before us, some of them have merit and could or should be included in the bill.

Amendment 106 complements amendment 103 by defining what registered social landlords and their subsidiaries are. Amendment 104 relates to an exemption from rent controls for properties with cladding or reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. Again, this is a self-explanatory amendment, which complements my colleague Graham Simpson’s amendment, whereby landlords who incur unintended and considerable costs to remediate buildings with cladding or RAAC should be exempt from rent controls. I lodged amendment 104 due to concerns that we have raised and had debates about in the chamber and in the committee. We still do not know how many properties are affected by those materials, and landlords will have to foot the bill to ensure that the properties are safe for tenants to use. The only way that some landlords would be able to recoup some of that money would be by raising rents at a sensible rate. Therefore, through this amendment, I urge the Scottish Government to consider such properties when looking at exemptions. I am certain that that aspect will form part of the consultation responses that the Government will receive.

Amendment 105 relates to the situation where landlords are carrying out works to make a property energy performance certificate compliant. Issues that relate to that have been discussed in the committee. Although we have yet to see what the EPC consultation will conclude, landlords are considering how best to improve their properties. Again, that work comes at a substantial cost, especially with regard to decarbonising homes and particularly in rural areas. Therefore, I hope that the cabinet secretary is sympathetic to my amendment, which encourages landlords to act responsibly for the benefit of achieving net zero but that also demonstrates an understanding of the costs that are associated with that work. There is a consultation under way to review the EPC system. Although that is welcome, it comes at a conflicting time, given that we are considering the Housing (Scotland) Bill. It might have been better to have concluded the EPC consultation first, because that could form part of an exemption in this legislation.

Amendment 134 would create an exemption from rent controls for smaller landlords—for example, a landlord who has no more than two other let properties. The reason for the amendment is to ensure that smaller landlords do not continue to leave the market because of rent controls. This is a measured approach, and I hope to see it form part of the work that will follow the consultation.

Amendment 329K is another important exemption that the Scottish Government needs to consider. Charities such as Right There are working to prevent people from becoming homeless and separated from loved ones. It works alongside the private rented sector to secure homes and to prevent people from becoming homeless, and its end goal is to ensure that every person has somewhere safe to call home. As we have heard from other members previously, landlords are often demonised, but this is another exceptional example of work that they undertake to provide people with a home but also to work alongside our incredible charities who serve to help and support people who need that. I hope that the feedback that is received in the consultation includes that particular sector, as I would not want it to be left out of the list of exemptions.

On amendment 109—I will double check that I have not got ahead of myself. Yes, I went too far ahead. I will leave my remarks there, as I believe that I will come back in to talk to Edward Mountain’s amendments.

I move amendment 102.

That is the risk in relation to how the bill has been developed and positioned alongside the consultation. I thank the cabinet secretary for moving the consultation forward, but I still question why the consultation was not conducted prior to stage 1 of the bill. That would have been a far better place for it to be, as that would have allowed us to know exactly what the sector is looking for, and it would then have been up to members to debate what could or could not be placed in primary legislation in the process of stage 2 and stage 3.

That is not where we are, and we need to deal with what is in front of us. It is imperative for all members to consider whether they want to move their amendments at this stage or whether they want to bring the amendments back at stage 3, should that be their intention. It is important to have these debates not just in the committee but also in the chamber, to make sure that we stand up and advocate for the sector that the bill will impact the most. It is imperative for members to come to that conclusion and to make sure that we raise the concerns that have been brought to us.

As Rachael Hamilton highlighted, a lot of the amendments in this group have been drafted alongside stakeholders, including representatives of the private, voluntary and independent sector and others. We need to bring this to a conclusion and get clarity from the cabinet secretary on what the Scottish Government expects to see in the bill.

In the interest of time, I will speak to Edward Mountain’s amendments in the group and then to my amendment 109, convener.

Amendment 153 is about information gathering. We have had quite a long discussion on that already, and the cabinet secretary has outlined her reasoning for not supporting the amendment at this stage due to a wider conversation that will happen in due course. For the interest of those who are following today’s proceedings, I note that amendment 153 seeks to include the number of bathrooms in the house in the information that is sought by local authorities. Similarly, amendment 154 would include information about the floor area of the house. Those amendments are about making sure that we obtain more information and data that is relevant to rental properties and to those who will be renting those properties.

Amendment 155 would require the information that is collected by local authorities to include the quality of the property, the required repairs and the EPC rating. I mentioned EPCs in earlier contributions. The information that amendment 155 would require will be important once we know more about the EPC review, and I hope that that can be teased out as part of the conversation that we will have during the summer. EPC compliance has been an area of interest not just for the Government but for the committees that cover that work.

Amendment 156 would allow the local authority’s landlord register to be used as an alternative means of gathering data to ensure that it is accessible, usable and collected in the appropriate manner.

I understand that the cabinet secretary has outlined her reasoning for not supporting those amendments, but I believe that we should look more widely at the landlord register and how it is used, and at ways in which we can do things differently to improve the overall aims of section 15.

Finally, I turn to my amendment 109, which, following the discussions that have taken place, I will not move. I emphasise that data is crucial to the bill. Whatever we do moving forward, we know that we are not in as good a place as we need to be when it comes to scrutinising particular areas of legislation because we do not have that data readily available. However, I take on board the issue of local government resourcing and how that will be put in place should certain amendments be voted for and agreed to today or at stage 3. Of course, we need to be mindful that, at a time when local authority funding has depleted, particularly in recent years, we should not put more financial pressures on local authorities to try to achieve something that they might not be able to achieve.

We need to look at the issue in the round. I do not necessarily believe that we will get the exact steer or direction today, but I welcome the comments from the cabinet secretary and other colleagues on the issue.

Yes, I will work alongside the cabinet secretary, Willie Rennie and other members in relation to that point.

It is important that, as we move forward, we make sure that we listen to concerns from the sector and, in particular, from investors. We do not want to stifle the market. Since stage 1, the position of the Scottish Conservatives has principally been to oppose rent controls but, should they be introduced, to make sure that we take an appropriate and measured approach. That is the best way of moving forward. I welcome the tone of the debate today and the exchanges from all members.

Amendment 102, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 150 moved—[Meghan Gallacher].

Given the discussions that we have had, I will move the amendment.

Amendment 107 moved—[Meghan Gallacher]—and agreed to.

Section 14—Properties subject to modified rent control area restrictions

Amendment 294 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville].

I realise that this could look as though I am making an intervention through an intervention, but I am still none the wiser as to which MSPs that would include, which amendments have been completely thrown out, and which amendments the minister is likely to work on with MSPs. As a voting member of the committee, I am unclear as to the direction. Therefore, in my view, it is unclear how committee members should vote and whether ministers are willing to work alongside colleagues on amendments, or whether the Government is suggesting that it would oppose the amendments.

I thank the minister for agreeing to support Edward Mountain’s amendment 142. I believe that it is a step in the right direction to ensure that the Scottish ministers must issue guidance to all local authorities on rent conditions reports. That is a way to strengthen the bill, and I will therefore move amendment 142 on behalf of Edward Mountain.

As the minister pointed out, Edward Mountain’s amendment 143 would mean that the guidance would have to include provisions about “eligible reasons” for rent controls. I believe that the proposal in the amendment to look at the scope for introducing rent controls in specific local authority areas or across the board is sensible. We need to tease out some of the reasons why rent controls may or may not be brought in. Edward Mountain would welcome the opportunity to work with the minister on that ahead of stage 3.

That is all that I have to say on Edward Mountain’s amendments but, before I finish, I want to raise a concern about the lack of attendance from members who want to be here. Because his committee meets at the same time as this one, Edward Mountain has not been able to attend today. I know that the Parliament is currently talking about the processes and functionality of committees but, if the proposed heat in buildings bill, for example, reaches this committee, it will have a heavy focus on net zero and energy, which relate to another committee that meets at the same time as this one. I hope that that can be reflected on, because there are members who want to attend the committee to speak to their amendments.

It will not come as any shock to members to hear that the Scottish Conservatives are opposed to rent controls in principle, as we believe that they will further harm an already delicate housing sector. This stage 2 consideration is critical for the potential of new investment in purpose-built rental accommodation in Scotland. The changes that we make at committee and at stage 3 will shape the housing sector’s future.

Scotland must be investable—otherwise, the Parliament will collectively fail to provide enough supply to meet demand in future. The pipeline of new-build rent projects is now frozen, and there has been a 0 per cent increase in the number of planned projects over the past year. Build-to-rent construction activity has fallen by 26 per cent over the past year, as schemes already under development have been completed. Schemes and planning have stagnated due to uncertainty, and investors remain unwilling to commit to new schemes.

Build-to-rent is an investment opportunity, and it should be additional to the delivery of private homes for sale and affordable and social housing. It is an opportunity to significantly boost housing supply that has been frustrated by years of sudden policy interventions by the Scottish Government and uncertainty on the long-term system of rent controls.

To put the issue into perspective, Scotland has delivered only 3,485 build-to-rent-led schemes in more than a decade. That compares to 122,279 completed and operational homes in England during the same period. We are in a housing emergency—Parliament has declared a housing emergency—so we cannot afford more ill-thought-out policies such as permanent rent controls.

I appreciate that committee members might not agree with the position that I am laying out to remove rent controls. However, I believe that this is an opportunity to have an open discussion in which we talk about opportunities to grow the mixed-tenured housing that Scotland desperately needs.

Rent controls will not sufficiently address issues that the private rented sector faces. My concern is that billions of pounds’ worth of investment into new-build homes will be held back due to this move. On that point, I need only refer to the last time that rent controls were introduced. According to a survey by the Scottish Association of Landlords, 17 per cent of landlords said that they had sold their rental properties or were considering selling them.

Rent controls have discouraged landlords from investing in the upkeep of their rental properties. According to the same survey, 44 per cent of landlords have reduced or stopped spending money on maintenance and improvements since rent controls were introduced.

It has also become more difficult for new renters to find housing. According to the Scottish Government, since the rent control introduction, the average time that it takes for a new tenant to find a property has increased from 12 to 16 weeks. Reduced supply, a disincentive for investment, exacerbation of the housing problem and other unintended consequences could await the private rented sector as a result of rent controls.

For those reasons, I have lodged the amendments in this group. I ask members to think carefully about the decision and what impact rent controls could have on those who provide housing, as well as about opportunities to ensure that we have enough housing stock for people who need homes.

I note that the minister has supported the removal of section 13, which relates to exemptions. That is probably the only area where we could find consensus in relation to rent controls being made permanent, but members will have lodged amendments on exemptions—I have done so, too. Through this debate, that issue must be made clear—we need to try to tease out from the minister what exemptions, if any, will be applicable and which ones he is sympathetic to.

I understand that there is on-going consultation on exemptions. I hope that the minister will realise that he has his work cut out for him in trying to navigate the issues and achieve a balance in the bill and its processes.

I move amendment 85.