Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have known for some time that the Government was considering bringing rent controls into the sector, so why was the consultation not carried out prior to this stage of the bill? Will the cabinet secretary reassure the sector that the consultation will go on for only as long as it has to and that exemptions will be made clear as soon as possible?

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.

What work has been undertaken to show that the period should be five years? One of the main reasons why stakeholders are concerned about permanent rent controls is the lack of data analysis and work in that field, so we do not know exactly what the impacts will be in Scotland. What impact assessments did the Scottish Government carry out before arriving at the period of five years?

Ross Greer has raised a really important point. It has been 15 months since the findings in question were published, and I note, too, that the stage 1 report of the Housing (Scotland) Bill was published on 14 November 2024. In both, concerns about these issues from students, student bodies and student representatives feature heavily.

Basically, we are collectively saying that progress has been very slow. I, too, am concerned that if these amendments are not at least considered, there might not be an opportunity to legislate to help to protect students. The minister needs to take the matter seriously and I hope that he will conclude that he will work with members on some of these issues and tease things out before stage 3.

Absolutely—but, again, that issue is in the Scottish Government’s bundle of issues that are too hard and too difficult to sort out that we have been dealing with for many years. I do not believe that we have sufficient time to examine what council tax reform would look like. As I said, the principle may well be supported. However, there needs to be a wider discussion about what that would look like and what the party positions would be. Legislation would need to be brought forward by the Government and parties would need to make their own considerations following that wider piece of work. I do not mean to take away from the work that has already been undertaken and the assessments that were concluded.

I will leave my comments there, other than to say that amendment 132 is intended to be a probing amendment on the LBTT.

Amendment 427 seeks to insert a part called

“Student residential tenancies: rent variation instigated by landlord’s notice”,

and a section called

“Landlord’s power to increase rent”.

Amendments 427 to 439 all relate to a similar issue. They seek to bring student residential tenancies and purpose-built student accommodation into line with private residential tenancies regarding the landlord’s power to increase rent and the protocol to be followed. As I have described, they are part of a wider group of amendments whose purpose is to include PBSA when dealing with the determination of rent in the First-tier tribunal. I believe that my colleague Edward Mountain is seeking to bring those amendments back at stage 3, so it would be helpful to hear what the minister thinks about amendments 427 to 439.

Edward Mountain’s amendment 407 proposes a different approach to the tenancy deposits of students who are non-UK domiciled from that which we have just heard about from my colleague Maggie Chapman. In my view, we are facing huge issues when it comes to not only student accommodation but the ability of students who move across Scotland or the UK to find that accommodation. Amendment 407 sets out that landlords who let to overseas students without a UK guarantor should be able to increase the deposit to

“three times the monthly rent”.

Again, that is to secure accommodation for students who are moving across the UK in order to find a university place and accommodation close by as well.

On the amendments that my colleague Graham Simpson has set out, I agree that amendments in relation to students must be included in the bill. It is evident from the committee’s stage 1 report that students have not been front and centre in the bill. However, we are experiencing so many different issues in relation to students who are trying to find good accommodation and affordable rents that we must seek to improve the bill in that area.

As Rachael Hamilton said, amendment 133 would create a layer of protection for rural areas in which a rent control area is introduced. The local authority would conduct an assessment to highlight

“the impact that the level of rent and rate of increase in rent payable under relevant tenancies of properties has on properties, tenants and landlords”.

The minister must put the needs of rural Scotland front and centre as the Government seeks to change the private, voluntary and independent sector. He will, of course, be aware that rented housing is vital to many of our rural economies, particularly in attracting workers to an area for seasonal work in sectors such as tourism, farming and forestry. The debate on rent controls has been heavily focused on urban areas, and that needs to change. Rural communities could be at real risk if the Scottish Government fails to take those important sectors into account.

I believe that the chief executive of Scottish Land & Estates, Sarah-Jane Laing, summarised the situation well when she said:

“Between the start of 2022 and the end of 2023, across 18 local authorities with rural areas, 11 saw decreases in the number of properties available for rental.

With the Scottish Government now seeking to move forward with rent caps, it needs to fully understand the further detrimental consequences this could have on rural rental provision before bringing forward the stage 2 amendments.”

Therefore, in relation to amendment 133, I ask the minister what specific engagement he has had with rural housing stakeholders on the issue. Is he inclined to support my amendment, which I believe would strengthen the support for rural communities?

Similar to amendment 133, my amendment 90 would strengthen the bill by ensuring that impacts on rural areas were considered and that such circumstances were addressed in the Scottish Government’s guidance. If that amendment is not agreed to today, I would be keen to discuss those issues with the minister to see whether we can make sure that they are covered in the guidance on the bill.

I turn to amendments 81 to 84. The bill will require local authorities to make periodic assessments of their rental markets. The Scottish Government is seeking to amend the end of the first reporting period from 30 November 2026 to 31 May 2027.

The proposed policy will replace the current option for local authorities to make rental assessments for the purpose of requesting that the Scottish ministers designate a rent pressure zone with a mandatory requirement for local authorities to make rental market assessments and recommendations as to whether to create a rent control area. Many stakeholders are concerned about whether there is effective and robust data collection, which remains an obstacle to local authority private rental market assessments and reports.

Amendments 81 to 84 would change the reporting period for assessing rent controls by each local authority area from five years, as stated in the bill as drafted, to four years, three years, two years or one year respectively. I believe that five years could be an extensive period for reporting on the impact of controls, and I seek further discussions with the minister to look at reducing the timeframe.

Through amendments 94 to 97, I seek clarity from the minister as to why he has opted for a five-year expiry date for regulations that designate a rent control area—unless those regulations are revoked—and as to what consultation he has undertaken with the PVI sector on expiry and reporting periods.

I want to follow up on the points that Rachael Hamilton has raised. The minister will be aware that landlords do not operate in only one local authority area—they operate in one, two, three or however many local authority areas in which they have properties. If local authorities are not producing these reports at the same time, how will that work? What additional strain will that put on the housing sector and landlords in the PVI sector, who will have to provide data to local authorities in order for them to produce those reports?