Seòmar agus comataidhean

I accept what the cabinet secretary has said about the post-war consensus and I take on board the exchange that she had with Daniel Johnson about not getting into an economic lecture here. However, it is quite clear that, in economic terms, the financial crash in 2008 broke that consensus, and since then, we have clearly seen wages vastly underperforming any other measure of inflation. Indeed, that looks set to be the new consensus. Looking back to something that is 80 years old as a justification for not allowing people to pay rents that increase in line with their earnings is problematic. However, I accept that we will just disagree on that point this morning.

Greens oppose exemptions to rent control measures. To work for renters and landlords, the system needs to be simple and transparent. We broadly have that with the system as established. Adding various exemptions—such as if the landlord is an employer of the tenant, is a military landlord, is a social landlord, if the property is buy-to-let—would make the system excessively complicated. Many renters are already not familiar with their rights. Bringing in a system of rent control but taking it away again for significant numbers of renters will only add to that problem.

The cabinet secretary has spoken a lot this morning about clarity for landlords and for investors. What about clarity for renters? Having so many different exemptions would not provide clarity for tenants. Therefore, I ask committee members not to support most of the amendments in this group but to support my amendments 329E, 329F, 329J and 329M. Amendments 329E and 329F have been worked up in partnership with Living Rent. If we absolutely must have exemptions, those amendments would limit them to properties that charge local housing allowance and social rates, so they meet the intention that the cabinet secretary outlined.

Amendment 329J would disallow exemptions for mid-market rents. Such an exemption would blow a significant hole in rent controls and mean that many lower-income households would not be protected; they would be priced out of much of the rental market. Amendment 329M would disallow exemptions for build-to-rent properties, to address the same situation that amendment 329J addresses for mid-market rents. An exemption for build-to-rent properties would mean that the vast majority of new-build build-to-rent properties could not be controlled under the legislation, which runs counter to the existential point of the bill.

I urge colleagues to consider very carefully the questions about exemptions. Exempting mid-market rents and build-to-rent properties could drive lower-income households out of urban centres and city centres. It could stoke gentrification. I ask members to consider what kinds of city centres we want to create—city centres for everyone or city centres that are only for the richer people who can afford to live in areas where rents are not controlled?

I repeat that, broadly speaking, the Scottish Greens do not support exemptions to rent controls. If we must have exemptions, they should be limited to those properties that are charging above the local housing allowance rates.

Okay.

The minister has mentioned that there are other rent guarantor schemes across Scotland. However, international students are quite often not allowed to access them. The minister has asked whether we can strengthen those existing avenues of support. Has he had conversations with any of the existing schemes to explore what might be possible, given what he said in response to both my and Jeremy Balfour’s amendments?

Okay. Apologies.

I am sorry, minister. I want to ask a question about amendment 536, which is about deposits. I had thought that you might say a bit more about it.

The minister has concerns that a system that would restrict up-front rent payments would mean that international students were treated differently, but they are already treated differently by the sector. It is international students who are often asked for three, six or 12 months’ rent up front—UK-domiciled students are not asked for that level of up-front rent. The sector is already treating international students differently, and they are disadvantaged as a consequence. The scheme is an attempt to equalise the system so that they would not be treated differently. What is the minister’s response to that point?

Should they be treated differently or not?

If I may, I will take a little time to talk about the bill overall but, before I do that, I express my thanks to the legislation team, the minister, MSPs from other parties and the organisations with which we have all had lots of conversations over the past many months.

I am proud that we are here discussing amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which, of course, was introduced by my Scottish Green colleague Patrick Harvie as part of our work with the Scottish Government to deliver a new deal for tenants. That bit is key, so I will repeat it: this is part of a new deal for tenants.

That is the point of the bill. The aim is to make living more affordable, healthier and happier for renters; to make renting safe and secure for those who choose to rent as well as for those who have to rent; and to make renting not just something from which landlords profit but something that is viable and non-stigmatising as part of our housing system. It is for renters that the bill exists at all. It aims to tackle and check the soaring rents to which they have been subjected for far too long; to give them rights to make their home really feel like their home; to provide protections against homelessness; and to give specific groups of tenants, such as students, protections against rip-off rents and to make housing fairer for them. It is with renters in mind that we have lodged the amendments to the bill that I will speak to today.

My amendments 144, 145 and 146 would establish a simple but important principle that the Scottish Government should respect local decision making on rent control areas. Under the bill at present, an application for a rent control area could simply be vetoed by the Scottish Government by not acceding to a request to designate a zone or by not making a decision on it. The Verity house agreement, which was signed by the Scottish Government, says:

“The powers held by local authorities shall normally be full and exclusive. They may not be undermined or limited by another, central or regional, authority”.

With all due respect to the minister, I do not see how a Government that signed up to that principle can then give itself an unchecked right of veto, however unintentionally. I think and hope that that is simply a drafting issue.

My amendments suggest a compromise and a way to deal with the issue. They would require the Scottish Government to introduce a suggested rent control area unless it brings a motion to the Parliament on not doing so. Therefore, the minister’s point that the amendments would remove ministers’ discretion is not actually the case; rather, the proposals would respect local decision making while guarding against any unlikely scenarios where a proposed rent control area is fundamentally flawed—that is very specifically what amendment 145 would do. It would give ministers the power to say, “No, not at this time,” but to do that in a democratic way, through the Parliament.

Turning to the other amendments in the group, I question why the minister’s amendment 278 kicks the can further down the road by ensuring that the process starts another six months later, given that the process has already been delayed on more than one occasion.

On the timing of the process, I support Carol Mochan’s intent in amendment 480 to ensure that local authorities need to look at bringing in rent control areas at least every five years. Doing it more frequently than that and limiting the lifetime of RCAs, as some of Meghan Gallacher’s amendments suggest, would add too much uncertainty for renters and landlords and would severely overstretch local authorities.

Although we cannot support all the Conservative amendments in the group, Conservative members have a number of helpful amendments, such as Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 206, which would help us to be clearer about how we draw the boundaries of rent control areas, and Graham Simpson’s amendment 69, on the establishment of rent boards. I have a couple of questions about the powers and responsibilities of those boards, but the principle is sound and we support amendment 69.

Purpose-built student accommodation can, and does, provide an important source of accommodation for students, but the sector is, quite frankly, getting out of control. A basic room in one PBSA block—the Vita student block in Fountainbridge in Edinburgh—is £406 not a month, but a week. That means that a student will be paying over £1,600 a month for the smallest—just 20 m²—and most basic room on offer. All that that does is line the pockets of private developers at the expense of students at a time when, as we know, student homelessness is on the rise.

The National Union of Students Scotland and student living rent groups across the country are very clear that student accommodation must be included in the bill. After all, students deserve the same protections as any other renters. That is why we need to look at controlling rents for student accommodation, too.

I welcome Graham Simpson’s amendment 59, which empowers the Scottish Government to introduce rent controls for student accommodation. However, as he alluded to, the way in which the amendment is written means that the Government will not have to do anything. Given the student housing crisis and the risk of homelessness that too many students face, doing nothing should not be an option for us today. My amendments 59A and 59B therefore require the Scottish Government to introduce controls into the sector. The detail of how that will be done will have to come later—after the appropriate consultation, of course—but I hope that we can take the first step today.

My other two amendments in the group—amendments 535 and 536—address a different set of issues, which I am sure that the National Union of Students Scotland and others highlighted to many of us. We know that, by virtue of not necessarily having family or other connections here, international students can struggle to get a guarantor, but we also know that they are very unlikely to default on rents. Amendments 535 and 536 therefore seek to introduce specific controls for non-United Kingdom domiciled students.

Amendment 535 would create a

“guarantor scheme for non-UK domiciled students”

whereby

“a public body”

would

“act as guarantor”

for international students, which means that they would not struggle to get rents simply because they do not have somebody who can say, “Yes—we will be the guarantor.”

Amendment 536 creates a review of deposits for international students. Deposits can be a further barrier for students who not only do not have a guarantor but also do not have access to other funds in the UK. We know of too many stories where international students are asked to pay three, six or 12 months’ rent up front in advance of signing a lease for a flat. That cannot be acceptable. We would not expect any other renter to pay so much money for accommodation in advance. I hope that we can move to reducing deposits so that the students whom we welcome here to study, many of whom play such an important role in our communities, are not priced out of doing so.

Accommodation is one of the key limiting factors for many international students. I hope that members will take amendments 535 and 536 seriously, because the situation is out of control.