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.

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.

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.

My amendments in the group focus on two main issues. Some are subject to pre-emption, and we will come to how that washes out in a moment.

I thank Emma Roddick for her comments. I agree with the points that she made, and my amendments address issues that are very similar to—or, in some cases, exactly the same as—those that she has sought to address.

I turn first to the issue of rent levels and what they actually mean or represent. My amendments 448, 449 and 450 address a technical, but important, issue. Current challenges to rent increases are based on open market rent as understood through advertised rent, not rents that are actually being paid. Since the majority of advertised rents are set at the maximum that the market will bear, open market comparison always pulls rents upwards. A real rent comparison would act as a stabiliser, and amendments 448 to 450 seek to move us towards that. As Emma Roddick outlined, we need to collect clear, coherent and comparable data across the country.

In her remarks, the cabinet secretary indicated that she was not clear about the benefit of the measures that are proposed in amendments 449 and 450. The benefit is just that—they will allow rent officers to have real rent information rather than some mythical advertised or guesswork information. Having accurate information on what renters are experiencing and landlords are charging will allow us to have a much clearer sense of what is going on than we have at the moment.

The next bunch of amendments—amendments 237, 324A and 325A—seek to raise the fines for non-provision of information and the provision of false information from £1,000 to £10,000 in both the original and the proposed new sections of the bill. That underlines the importance of getting the necessary correct information, which was highlighted in the evidence that the committee received at stage 1. In that evidence, it was identified that what made rent pressure zones unworkable was not having the information in the right form, as Emma Roddick outlined.

We cannot be in a situation in which the fines that are imposed are treated by some landlords as just the cost of doing business. If they get found out, they will be fined, but they will incorporate those fines into their expected costs. The fines must be real incentives to act properly and appropriately and provide the information that is required when it is required. That is why I believe—and I think that others round the table agree—that the £1,000 fine is just too low. It does not incentivise appropriate and proper behaviour.

The Scottish Government has a large number of amendments in the group, and I support most of them. Overall, rent controls will work only when local councils have the necessary information on rents and other aspects of the properties. The Government’s amendments seek to provide for that information.

I support Emma Roddick’s amendments in the group and the intention behind them, which is to shift the burden of providing information on to landlords by requiring them to provide it as soon as possible after they register as a landlord, rather than waiting to be asked for it.

Carol Mochan’s amendment, which provides for the information that is provided by landlords to be sent to the tenants, who will then be able to challenge its accuracy and perhaps provide additional information, is also welcome.

Section 15 is important. If we want to ensure that we have accurate and appropriate information, we need to support the mechanisms for the collection of that information, and we need appropriate penalties for use when it is not provided or it is provided falsely or inaccurately.

Overall, there is a lot of positive work in section 15. I take on board the cabinet secretary’s offer of on-going conversations, and I would be pleased to engage with her on that basis in advance of stage 3. However, like Emma Roddick, if we do not get to where we need to be and we do not get as far as we need to go, I will seek to bring my amendments back at stage 3.

The modelling that we have done, with the support of SPICe, has focused on the impact on renters and their ability to pay in order to have an affordable house—a roof over their heads. As I said last week, the Housing (Scotland) Bill was introduced as part of a collection of policies and strategies designed to provide a new deal for tenants. The purpose of rent controls is to allow tenants to have affordable homes in which to live, not to line the pockets of profiteering landlords.

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.

We have not seen rents decrease where more homes have been built. I have lodged further amendments to the bill, which we will consider at a later point, on some of the challenges around mid-market rent and build to rent. We have not seen rents go down when a lot more homes have become available through the kind of building that Meghan Gallacher describes.

I will finish my point first. We have seen homes become unaffordable for a vast number of renters, with renters being forced into homelessness or invisible homelessness, such as sofa surfing, which is not always captured by the figures that we have. There are many ways to increase the supply of homes, and the measures that I am proposing seek to retain affordability as a key element of that supply.

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.

The cabinet secretary said that the measures were not designed to be transitionary, so why was the committee told that they were, and that having a gap between the measures and RCAs coming into force would be extreme and problematic?