Seòmar agus comataidhean

I begin by reinforcing my earlier answer to Miles Briggs about the pattern of evictions in different tenures. For quite a long time, eviction from the private rented sector was extremely dominant as a source of new homelessness. That began to come under control, but it remained high before the pandemic. The emergency regulation that was brought in at the start of the pandemic significantly reduced that. After that time, and before the introduction of the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Act 2022, we saw a steady and very marked increase in homelessness from the private rented sector. We did not see that same effect in social housing that is provided by either local authorities or registered social landlords. We recognise that something significant and harmful has happened regarding the sources of homelessness.

We took the view that the economic situation has not markedly changed since the introduction of the legislation. There is a necessity to give a level of protection, not only by pausing evictions to allow people more time to find new accommodation but by having significant measures to create disincentives for unlawful eviction, which remains a serious problem in Scotland. Landlords previously faced a very low level of penalty, which meant that they did not find it to be a disincentive.

We have made it easier and more relevant for tenants who are faced with unlawful or unreasonable eviction to take action to protect themselves from that. We believe that both the moratorium and the additional protections that are provided by the measures against unlawful eviction remain necessary in the current circumstances. The concerns that other members have raised about the availability of rented housing in some parts of the country reinforce the necessity of those measures.

I am not aware of recent contact from the universities on that issue.

In our view, the provisions will clearly, almost by definition, have prevented some rented sector households from falling into homelessness by, as I said, giving them extra time to find alternative accommodation or seek housing advice and support from specialist agencies.

For private rented sector tenants, the measures continue to provide protection by making it easier and more meaningful, as I said, to challenge unlawful eviction. Unlawful eviction is a type of experience that people can go through that is more likely to lead to homelessness. In fact, I count myself among their number. I narrowly avoided homelessness when I was evicted from a flat by a dodgy landlord long before some of the current protections were in place, so I take very seriously the impact on people’s lives when they encounter those behaviours or practices.

The longer-term work on homelessness prevention duties is, I think, long awaited by the sector. We have engaged extensively with stakeholders to make sure that the measures that we bring forward will help to strengthen the protection against homelessness and to reduce it. I am not sure whether Adam Krawczyk has any current data that he wants to throw into the conversation on current patterns.

The impact has been a subject of concern from the social rented sector, but we have been pleased with our ability to reach agreement with the sector. The average approach—the approach of not setting a cap and not even seeking a voluntary, uniform cap for the social rented sector, but of offering an average instead—allows for some flexibility.

Some social landlords will have an urgent need to invest in quality and maintenance as well as other aspects of their investment programme. Some will have managed more successfully than others to keep rents low and under control during the pandemic. They will not all have followed exactly the same path, because they are independent bodies. Given the different circumstances that different social landlords are in, it was appropriate that we allow some degree of flexibility.

Social landlords exist for a social purpose and they are not there to extract the maximum rent that they can extract from the properties that they have on offer; they take that social purpose very seriously. None of them would seek to impose unaffordable rent increases or ones that could reasonably be avoided. In fact, we are seeing early indications that the rents that are being set are significantly below average. I have seen figures from some local authorities that have set their rent increases for the coming year at 2, 3 or 4 per cent—significantly below the average that we have been seeking. We anticipate that that will continue to be the case, and the Scottish Housing Regulator will continue to give us information on that.

Obviously, we are in regular dialogue with them. I have to say, though, that I have seen some media reports that have not quite captured the full detail of this. If there is an announcement about what is going to happen to the cap, not every media report will properly capture the difference between the impact on the social rented sector and the impact on the private rented sector. That is why we need to continue to work directly with social landlords, for example, who have that on-going responsibility for consultation and tenant engagement, as well as with private landlord representative bodies and organisations that speak directly to and advocate on behalf of tenants.

It also worth reflecting on the fact that there is a role for organisations that engage with tenants in the social rented sector but which are not social housing providers, such as the Tenants Information Service, and the work of local authorities such as Glasgow’s tenant-led housing panel—is it a panel? [Interruption.] I have been told that it is a commission—I will actually be seeing some of them later this week. They, too, continue to have a role not just in letting us know about additional channels of communication that we should be using but in speaking directly to tenants. Indeed, they have been very active in doing so.

Previously, when we have debated not so much this legislation but the new deal for tenants, it has been clear that ideology comes into the debate a little bit. There are some who are of the view that a more deregulated, more free-market approach to housing will increase supply and that any impact on prices will be detrimental to that. Actually, if we look at some European countries that have had systems of rent controls in place for a long time, we see a larger private rented sector as a proportion of the housing stock than we see in Scotland.

That is not the universal experience, and it is well understood that rent controls can achieve their objectives well or poorly. We continue to engage with all stakeholders to ensure that we design a system that is right for Scotland and that will be able to achieve protection in terms of affordability but which will also be consistent with what Scotland needs in terms of good-quality housing supply and investment in all the hugely important priorities around the transition to net zero.

There is a connection between rental income and investment in either sector. That relationship between rental income and investment is not the same in the social rented sector—which, as I said earlier, is a non-profit-making sector—as it is in the private rented sector. There are examples of build to rent, but a great deal of private rented accommodation is not actually provided by landlords—it is not necessarily built by them but is acquired by them as existing property.

Therefore, there are huge differences between the sectors, and we are keen to continue to do the work that we have been taking forward since the publication of the new deal for tenants and which will continue to be in development until the bill is introduced later this year. I look forward to further extensive dialogue with the committee at that point.

To give tenants confidence, the Government is already doing a huge amount of work—and more is to come—on communications with people about the cost of living crisis, the support that is available and the advice that they can follow to minimise their exposure.

As for the sector, I come back to exactly the same points that I made to Miles Briggs about working closely with the sector ahead of any decision about the cap’s future. The initial six-month period, to the end of March, does not directly impact on social landlords’ rental income, but it gives a clear focus to ensure that we can work with them and make a decision that is well informed by their perspective on the future operation of a cap and the future of how to support tenants, not just through investment in the quality of properties—in repairs and maintenance and in net zero measures—but through the wider services that social landlords provide. We are actively engaging with them and creativity is being brought to bear, as I have said.

Those are important and well-put questions. Information in the impact assessments that accompany the bill will give some indication of the differential impact and the intersectional aspects of inequality in relation to it. [Interruption.] I have just been told that those impact assessments have just been published, so they will be available to you.

It would be wrong not to reflect, as I did earlier, on the fact that data on the private rented sector is one of the areas where there is a lot more work to do. The social rented sector tends to be a better position, not only because of certain requirements, but because in many cases it is structurally easier to collect that data. The social rented sector has larger landlords, which operate mostly in a close geographic area and are well regulated. Because the private rented sector is much more fragmented, with many more individual landlords, it is much harder to collect that data under the current framework. That is something that we are looking to improve.

On the question of accessing the various support schemes and funds that the Government has put in place, I will certainly engage with my colleagues who are responsible for social security to make sure that we join the dots between the issues within their remit and the ways in which the bill and its reporting mechanisms will operate.

I have not expressed concerns about the unworkability of the bill. I am satisfied that it is compliant and consistent with devolved competence.

I assume that you are not still thinking about the social rented sector.