Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

The cabinet secretary’s remarks have been really helpful, because we know that not been enough data has been published—if it has been published at all—on these areas in the past. We need to ensure that the data is not only made available to MSPs to scrutinise but is put in the public domain, so that people have full transparency on what the market is saying and what information is being collected by local government. If there would be an opportunity for me to be part of the meeting with local government colleagues, I would certainly be interested in that.

I also wonder whether we can, as soon as possible, get a feel for what the simplified system will look like. We in Parliament often talk about high-level things, but, as Alexander Stewart and others have said, local authorities will have to administer the system, and we do not want to put a burden on colleagues who might not have the resource to do the work.

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 ensures 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 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 minister 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.

I completely understand—

I turn to my colleague Edward Mountain’s amendments. Amendment 150 relates to Scottish ministers providing definitions of which properties are exempt within six months of section 13 coming into force. We need to have a measured approach that makes sure that exemptions for properties are brought forward within a suitable timeframe while also providing clarity to the sector.

Amendment 151, which has also been lodged by my colleague, would provide an important exemption in that it would exempt military accommodation from rent controls. Again, this exemption is a no-brainer and I hope that it will be in the feedback from the consultation.

Amendment 152 would exempt any property

“for which the tenant is an employee of the landlord.”

That will relate to many farms and rural dwellings, which should be taken into consideration. We need to make sure that family farms—or any farms—are thriving enterprises, so we need to consider exemptions in this area as well.

Like Katy Clark’s amendment 412, amendment 147 aims to allow repair works, improvements and any work relating to energy efficiency to be taken into account. The exemption would be calculated based on the level of work that is required. There is a strong argument for reference having to be made to the condition of the property, whether it is in a good condition or a bad condition, as that could provide an additional layer of protection for tenants. I am unsure at this point whether Katy Clark will move her amendment, but I think that she has indicated that she will not move it.

I am concerned by amendments 284 and 285, which will leave a loophole in the bill, as ministers will no longer have to consult the relevant local authorities, tenants and landlords on the form and level of the rent control measures that are being considered for proposed rent control areas. Amendment 285 will mean that, when designating a rent control area, ministers will no longer have to include the reasons for doing so, or the level of the rent control measure to be introduced in that area, in their report to the Parliament. That will remove an additional layer of protection from the bill, which would be vital should rent controls be put in place.

I also want to mention my upcoming amendment 107, which would remove exemptions. That relates back to the overall Scottish Conservative principle and stance that we are opposed to rent controls. It will be a bit odd to push for that amendment but to then talk about adding exemptions in subsequent amendments. However, given our overall position and stance, it is right that we try to remove sections on rent controls, but we recognise that, if rent controls are to be put in place, those exemptions would be an important part of the argument. There are certain areas that we want to be exempt from rent controls.

Of course, there is an on-going consultation on exemptions from rent controls. I have pressed the cabinet secretary to ensure that that consultation is concluded as soon as possible in order to provide reassurance to the sector.

We are in a housing emergency—I think that we all agree on that—and we need the private sector to bring in investment in order to build more homes. How are we going to tackle the housing emergency if we cannot have that investment in Scotland to build more homes and get people into them? Surely there is an argument that, if we build more homes, that will naturally reduce rents.