Seòmar agus comataidhean

I hear what Meghan Gallacher is saying. However, it would be up to the renter—the tenant—to find out how to join the union. A new employee is provided with a lot of information on their employment terms, but the mechanism for providing that information is not necessarily laid out in statute anywhere; what is set out is that that information will be provided and that an employee can join a trade union. The same principle would apply here. The amendments do not set out information about how someone would join a union, which one they would choose or how they would go about joining; they are about the renter having the information that, in this case, such unions exist and are available. I am not sure that we need to set out in statute—that is, in the bill—exactly how that communication would happen, given that, as you have suggested, communication mechanisms change all the time. The amendments would just require landlords to make that information available to renters, because there is so much information out there that is not communicated at the moment. The amendments would ensure that the landlord was required to communicate that information, and they could do so in a way that worked for the situation.

This has been a thorough and wide-ranging but productive discussion. I have listened carefully to the cabinet secretary and to MSP colleagues. There is clear cross-party agreement on the need to improve the quality of homes, regardless of what sector they are in. Our homes are the foundation of our health and wellbeing, and, too often, they make renters ill. Poor-quality homes can have direct physical health consequences—we have heard about the effects of homes that have mould and damp—but they can also have negative impacts on mental health, confidence and so much more, as Emma Roddick and others have highlighted.

I cannot see a justification for different approaches to be taken to the private rented sector and the social rented sector. Quality matters, regardless of tenure and sector. There is clearly a need for people such as migrant agricultural workers to have healthy, decent places to live in, too, so I am grateful that that issue has been aired. It is one that I have come across repeatedly in the North East Scotland region.

Despite the cabinet secretary’s assurances, I remain unconvinced that the current systems for ensuring quality are working. If they were working well, we would not see the levels of failure to meet the standards that we see. We need to have better and more unified standards, proper checks on properties, penalties where those are not being met and timescales for substandard properties to be remedied. The amendments from the Greens and others would help us to move towards that.

Like Graham Simpson, I am not trying to be awkward, but because these issues are of such grave importance to renters and their advocacy groups, I will press amendment 257.

I hear what the cabinet secretary says about the existing powers and the guidance that we have, but it has become very clear that many tenants do not know the full range of their rights and that landlords are not providing them with the information that, as you indicate, they should provide according to the 2016 act and other requirements. What does the Scottish Government intend to do to strengthen those provisions and ensure that landlords comply?

I will come back on that very briefly. You cannot look into something if you do not know that it exists. The amendments are about providing the information to the tenant that unions exist. As you say, the tenant would then need to do their own homework and explore which one might be right for them—if, indeed, they choose to join such a union. However, if they do not know that those unions exist in the first place, they cannot explore which one to join.

My first amendment in this group, amendment 229, would extend a key protection to tenants of properties that are not in rent control areas and properties that might be exempt from rent controls. Where a rent control area is in place, rent increases would be limited to one increase per property in any 12-month period, even if the tenant changes in that time. It is unclear why, as a matter of principle, all private tenants should not enjoy those basic protections. Amendment 229 would mean that, if the landlord had increased the rent in a previous tenancy less than 12 months before the start of the current tenancy, they would have to set the rent for the current tenancy at no more than the final rent payable under the immediately preceding tenancy. It is a modest and sensible measure to stop landlords taking advantage of a change in tenant to hike rent further.

Amendment 258, in my name, would set the important principle that a rent should not be increased if minimum standards are not met. In partnership with an amendment in a later group, that principle would apply in and outwith rent control areas. I will address that more fully when we discuss the main set of amendments that relate to quality, but there is a clear problem with poor energy efficiency, damp and other problems in some parts of the private rented sector, which I am sure that we are all well aware of. If we freeze or cap rents where minimum standards are not met, landlords will have little choice but to bring their properties up to scratch.

Amendment 266 is consequential to amendment 258 and would ensure that the affirmative procedure is used.

Can I just clarify that the member is referring to minimum standards in energy efficiency as well as quality?

I will take those in turn. There has been quite a lot of discussion about what energy efficiency would look like. We currently have the energy performance certificate ratings, but we expect those to change, which is why we have not defined those in the bill. The use of the affirmative procedure, as provided for by amendment 266, would give the scope to properly define minimum standards on the basis of whatever energy efficiency measures were determined to be appropriate, if not EPC.

There are mechanisms that outline and define quality in housing regulations and in amendments on repairs and standards that we will discuss in later groups. We need to ensure that there are adequate measures, some of which relate to energy efficiency, on things such as draft proofing.

Amendment 266 is consequential to amendment 258 and requires that the regulations that amendment 258 refers to are brought in using the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 451 states that information related to amendments 449 and 450, which we debated a lifetime ago—yesterday morning—would need to be taken into account when determining open market rent.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 214 would require the landlord to specify in the rent increase notice the reasons for the rent being increased. That adds transparency, which is very welcome, and we support that amendment.

Mark Griffin’s amendments 501 and 500 would weaken protections for private tenants of some social sector landlords. We cannot support those weakened protections.

There are three sets of amendments in this group, and I will take each of them in turn. The first set, which comprises amendment 158 and consequential amendments 148, 149, 159, 160 and 185, would allow the Scottish Government to introduce an emergency national rent control system.

Members of the committee will remember our introducing emergency powers in a great rush during the Covid pandemic. The simple aim of amendment 158 is to ensure that we do not have to rush to reinstate those powers, should the unthinkable happen again and we face a similar public health or other emergency. We would not need to go through the process of an emergency bill because we would already have the powers to act. That does not mean that ministers would have to use the powers; it means that they would have the opportunity to do so if circumstances called for them. It is a simple precautionary measure.

The second set, which comprises amendment 199 and consequential amendments 186 and 196, seeks to reinstate the transitional provisions that offered some protection to tenants ahead of rent control areas coming into force. Those protections expired at the end of March, exposing renters to unacceptable rises in rents, above the protected limit of 12 per cent that those provisions guaranteed. Those measures were meant to act as a bridge to the bill’s controls, and it makes absolutely no sense for them to have lapsed before rent control areas are in place and the bill has achieved royal assent.

I would go as far as to say that knowingly allowing those protections to lapse was reckless, and no impact assessment was undertaken before that happened. Renters on lower incomes—those who can least afford such uncontrolled hikes—have virtually no protections now. The Scottish Government, which supports rent controls, is allowing rents to soar in the two years before its new rent control measures come into force. Landlords can use and are using this period to hike rents before rent control measures begin.

The Scottish Government told this committee:

“If we were to move directly from the emergency measures by switching them off entirely at some point in the future and go back to open market comparisons for rent adjudication, there would be severe and unintended consequences.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 28 February 2023; c 7.]

That is exactly what is happening now—we are experiencing “severe and unintended consequences.” We need to act, and that second set of amendments deals with that situation.

My third and final set of amendments, which comprises amendments 424 to 426, would introduce “special rent control areas”. Those areas would work much the same way as rent control areas, but they would allow for rents to be increased by a lower amount than is specified in the central formula, to be frozen or to be cut. Those powers are crucial. Rents have increased by grotesque amounts in some areas—as we have already heard this morning, they have increased by more than 100 per cent in some areas—and the central formula of CPI plus 1 per cent up to a maximum of 6 per cent will do nothing to address that.

There is a very strong case in Glasgow, Lothian and some other areas that have recently had large rent increases to apply short-term controls that would allow for much tighter limits on rent. If we do not do that, we would essentially be endorsing the unacceptable increases that have taken place in recent years.

I will be happy to discuss with colleagues whether those tighter controls should require different processes for approval, different standards of evidence or other safeguards. I have already limited the lifetime of the proposed special rent control areas to one year. However, I hope that we can agree on the principle that there are some areas in which tighter controls will temporarily be needed. Recognising that principle means that we should do something about it, which is what I am seeking to do with my amendments. I hope that colleagues can support that principle and therefore my amendments.

I move amendment 148.

I acknowledge that the national rent cap does not take into account geographical variation, but that is the point—it is a national system that is designed for a situation in which there are external pressures that are extraordinary.

I appreciate what that cabinet secretary said about the powers being broad and that local authorities will have interim assessment powers within the existing framework, but there might well be instances when we need to act very quickly. I believe that having that power would give some comfort to renters who do not necessarily have the leeway to cope with external shocks—that is why we introduced the emergency provisions a few years ago. The amendments would give ministers the power to do that again, but they do not require them to use that power.

I take issue with what the cabinet secretary said about the protections that expired at the end of March not being intended as a bridging mechanism. The Housing (Scotland) Bill was supposed to be much further along by this point in the parliamentary session and we had expected rent controls to be in place by now, so the protections were bridging mechanisms. The fact that no impact assessment was carried out means that the Scottish Government has no idea what the negative impact of the loss of those protections will be on renters.

Finally, the designation of special rent control areas is a temporary measure that would deal with hyperlocal areas. However, I appreciate what the cabinet secretary has said and giving those powers perhaps goes too far. I wonder whether there is scope for conversation on and an opportunity for us to consider hyperlocal issues in areas that a local authority has already designated as rent control areas. I would appreciate an intervention from the cabinet secretary on that point.

Over the same time period to which Daniel Johnson refers, we have also seen an increase in the number of people who are struggling to pay rent. A significant issue is the increasing unaffordability of homes and rents, with people being unable to secure tenancies, never mind get into any other type of tenure across the housing market.

Many of us believe that the housing market itself is fundamentally broken, and my proposed measures are designed to protect those who are—not always, but in many cases—the most vulnerable. That includes not just those renters who cannot afford to buy or who choose not to be owner-occupiers, but people who have been faced—as the modelling has shown—with an increase in rent of more than 100 per cent in the past 15 years. Very few people—I would go so far as to say virtually no renters—have seen their income increase by anything like that amount. That is what my amendments seek to address.

Amendment 332H seeks to ensure that a freeze or a cut is possible, in order that the way that rates have soared in certain areas can be taken into account.

My proposed changes to amendment 289 address changes to rent control areas themselves. Amendment 289 would allow the regulations to be revoked or the size of the areas to be decreased. However, the experience of a rent control area might show that the area is too small, so my amendment 289A would add the option of increasing the size of the area. I accept the cabinet secretary’s point that that would imply the designation of a new rent control area, and I understand that there is hesitation to apply an increase without going through the process of analysis that leads to such a designation. However, that information will be forthcoming in the analysis of existing rent control areas, and I think that it could be used to justify increasing the size of an area. That does not mean that the provision would have to be used in that way, but it could be.

I will speak briefly to some of the other amendments in the group. Amendment 412, in the name of Katy Clark, and Edward Mountain’s amendment 147 would allow for the quality, energy efficiency and state of repair of a property to be taken into account when controlling rent. The Greens have lodged amendments to other parts of the bill with the same intent, and, as I think that amendments 412 and 147 would support those Green amendments, I am happy to work with Katy Clark and Edward Mountain on them and will support them if they are moved. After all, we need an effective and consistent approach to drive up the quality of private rented accommodation.

On amendments 49, 61 and 64, in the name of Graham Simpson, which seek to allow rents to be increased where they have not been increased recently or where they are significantly below the open market rent, I am a little bit concerned not just about the complexity that might arise but about the uncertainty that the amendments might create for tenants and renters. Open market rents are already inflated, because of the way in which they are worked out, so using them as a reference point at the moment might be flawed. However, I will be interested to hear what Graham Simpson has to say.

Amendments 66 and 67 would allow rents to be increased to recoup costs related to the maintenance, improvement or regulatory compliance of rented properties. For me, that has the potential to send the wrong message to landlords, specifically in respect of regulatory compliance. We should not be rewarding landlords just for getting their rental properties up to a minimum legal standard by allowing them to raise rents. I ask Graham Simpson to address the point about compliance, in particular, because we should not be rewarding people just for meeting basic compliance standards.

Finally, on Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 207, I listened carefully to her comments about the need to be clear about what we mean by rents and what utilities may or may not be included in them. As her amendment would help to provide clarity in that regard, we will support it.

I will leave my comments there, convener.