Seòmar agus comataidhean

Daniel Johnson’s amendment raises an important point about improvements, which Mark Griffin has detailed. The work that I have undertaken to prepare for this meeting suggests that we are in a good place in that regard, but, if Daniel Johnson believes that there are remaining concerns, I am happy to look at that before stage 3 and to speak to him and providers in that area to see whether those concerns are shared.

Work is on-going with the Scottish Law Commission to consider potential reforms to the law on tenement management schemes in the 2004 act, and that work, which will report in spring 2026, might assist with some of those areas. However, if Mr Griffin and Mr Johnson are still concerned about the issue, we are happy to come back to the points that they have raised, whether in relation to superfast broadband or to other areas, because it is exceptionally important that we look at those aspects. I am happy to take the matter away and seek further reassurance.

Although I recognise the intent behind amendment 516, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, to make all new dwellings safer, I cannot support an amendment that seeks to change subordinate legislation without consultation. The Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004, which prevent the installation of combustible external wall cladding systems on relevant buildings, were confirmed in 2022, following consultation the previous year. A formal review process would be needed to support a change in the scope of those regulations, and evidence to support such a change would be essential. The safety case for change and the economic and social impacts require to be understood, quantified and consulted on before an informed decision can be made.

Many will be aware that, as part of our response to the Grenfell tower inquiry phase 2 report, we have committed to a further broad review of standards, and a call for evidence on our current fire safety provisions will be launched this autumn. That will provide an opportunity for the issues that have been raised in Meghan Gallacher’s amendments to be considered and for relevant evidence to be gathered. The call for evidence will support us in identifying and prioritising improvements to our fire safety standards, and I believe that that is the correct way of moving forward with the issues that Ms Gallacher has raised in her amendment. Accordingly, I cannot support the amendment today, but I hope that the on-going consultation will assist with the process.

I will briefly summarise. The Scottish Government is absolutely determined to bring forward Awaab’s law in the social rented sector and the private rented sector. The ways of doing it are different for those two sectors because of the legislation, but the end point for them is absolutely the same. I am happy to work with Mr Simpson on that in the run-up to stage 3.

I will reflect on that exact point imminently, Mr Simpson.

I hope that Meghan Gallacher will be reassured that, although it is not a housing issue, there has been a recent consultation on extending the current provisions on combustible cladding to hotels and similar premises. The consultation closed on 7 March and the responses to it are currently being analysed, and the outcomes will be confirmed in the autumn. I hope that that picks up the point outwith housing, which is being looked at in that consultation. I am sure that relevant ministers will keep Ms Gallacher informed of that consultation and the Government’s response in due course.

Without putting further pressure on the work on repairing standards that we are about to do over the summer, an important outcome of that work will be clarity on whether changes are required in primary or secondary legislation or whether, as we have spoken about, things can be done using non-legislative measures such as improving people’s knowledge of their rights. We need to think about what it is more important and useful to have in secondary legislation, which, as Maggie Chapman knows, is much easier to change—to add to or to take away from—over time, as circumstances, events and requirements change depending on what happens. That is why, for such aspects, I would suggest that secondary legislation is a more appropriate mechanism.

Alongside that, our current consultation includes consideration of the information that landlords should be required to give to tenants in situations where the property is exempt from rent control or where an increase above the level of the rent cap is permitted.

I therefore urge Maggie Chapman not to press her amendments. I would be happy to work with her, ahead of stage 3, to ensure that the concerns that she has raised about how we can use the existing powers to maximum effect, to ensure that tenants are given relevant information and are aware of their rights, are addressed.

Amendment 274, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would require a social landlord to provide information to a tenant about their ability to join a tenants union before they sign their tenancy agreement. I understand Maggie Chapman’s wish to have the amendment supported across the private and social rented sectors. However, in legislative terms, the two sectors are very different in that social housing tenants have, since 2001, had a statutory right to tenant participation with their landlord. That was further strengthened by the introduction of the Scottish social housing charter, in 2012. Accordingly, I cannot support amendments 273 and 274, as what they propose is already provided for in statute and in guidance.

I urge members to support amendments 354 to 361 and, if they are moved, not to support the amendments in the names of Mark Griffin, Daniel Johnson and Maggie Chapman, for the reasons that I have set out.

I move amendment 354.

As the committee is already aware, the bill sets out that any designation of a rent control area will apply for a period of five years, and section 11 of the bill requires ministers to keep rent control areas under review to ensure that they remain necessary and proportionate.

We realise that it will be crucial for Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament more widely to keep under review the impact of the bill on the private rented sector, which is particularly important when it comes to the impact of the rent control measures that we have introduced.

Although I have some concerns about the specific details and the amendments that have been lodged, I would be willing, ahead of stage 3, to look at how we can put a requirement to report on the impact of the rent control measures on a legislative footing.

Graham Simpson’s amendment 70 would create a duty on Scottish ministers to review the operation of the rent control measures of the bill every five years, particularly in relation to the impact on the rental market and housing affordability, to publish a report on the review and to lay that report before Parliament.

I agree with the principle of monitoring the impact of part 1 of the bill, and Graham Simpson’s proposal to do so on a five-yearly basis is broadly in line with the local authority assessment process and is therefore a sensible one. However, I have some concerns about the specific drafting of his amendments in this group, due to the inflexible nature of the statutory duties that they set out.

In particular, I have very real concerns about Mr Simpson’s amendments 71, 72 and 76, which are consequential to amendment 70 and would confer a very broad power—some would say a sweeping power—on Scottish ministers to modify any act in relation to the outcome of the review. I do not consider that such broad powers are proportionate. The rent control measures that are set out in the bill have been designed to include the flexibility to modify various aspects of the regime where that is necessary and proportionate. Such broad powers as those proposed would create uncertainty and would have a negative impact on future investment, which we all agree is so vital.

I do want to work with Graham Simpson on this issue, however. My offer is to work with him on a stage 3 amendment that would incorporate his proposal in amendment 70 for a five-yearly reporting requirement. I cannot support the associated wide-ranging powers to modify legislation that he has proposed, but I hope that he would be willing to take up my offer to work with him, and that we can find something more proportionate. On that basis, I would Graham Simpson not to press his amendments.

Amendment 226, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, would require the Scottish ministers to conduct an impact assessment of the provisions of the eventual act on rural and island communities no later than 12 months after royal assent. Although I am supportive of Rachael Hamilton’s focus on rural areas, I believe that the measures in the bill will support all areas of Scotland. We have already published a suite of documents to support the introduction of the bill that set out our assessment of the impacts of the proposed measures, and it would seem to be relevant to the intent behind the amendment.

I recognise the benefit of monitoring the impact of the measures in the bill once they are implemented, particularly on rural landlords, but an assessment that requires to be carried out while the measures are still in the process of being implemented—as would be the case under the terms of amendment 226—would be administratively burdensome. I would be more supportive of reporting on the impacts on the rural sector as part of our overall assessment of the rent controls under the bill on a five-yearly basis. I therefore aim to ensure that the amendment that I hope to agree with Mr Simpson ahead of stage 3 will also address the underlying principle that Rachael Hamilton has quite rightly addressed today. On that basis, I cannot support Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 226, and I urge members not to support it if it is moved.

If Rachael Hamilton is keen to press amendment 214, I ask that we pause and use the opportunity between stages 2 and 3 to discuss with the Scottish Association of Landlords the additional administrative burden on landlords. It is the burden on landlords that I am particularly concerned about. I see Rachael Hamilton’s point about what the amendment is trying to achieve, but I am concerned about the administrative burden on each individual landlord.

Amendment 214, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, requires that rent increase notices for private residential tenancies for properties that are outwith a rent control area should set out the reasons for a proposed rent increase. I am not convinced that that would be a clear benefit for tenants, and I am very concerned about the increased administrative burden on all landlords. Therefore, I cannot support amendment 214 and I urge Rachael Hamilton not to press it.

Amendments 501 and 500, in the name of Mark Griffin, would create exceptions to the requirement that private rents should not be raised in the first 12 months of a tenancy outwith a rent control area or for an exempt property in a rent control area. The bill contains a power that allows for exemptions to be set out in regulations, which we have discussed in earlier groups, and those will be part of the live consultation for those who will be impacted.

Although I understand Mark Griffin’s intentions with respect to social housing providers, an approach that sets out any exception to the requirement that rent is not increased during the first 12 months of a tenancy should be set out in regulations. I appreciate that the issue is a concern of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations in particular, and I reassure Mark Griffin that we will engage with it and other interested parties on that as we move forward with implementation. The development of the regulations that I mentioned will allow us the opportunity to engage with everyone, including the SFHA, to ensure that any exceptions are reasonable and that we strike the right balance. I am afraid that amendments 501 and 500 do not allow for that, so I cannot support them and I urge Mr Griffin not to move them.

Amendment 229, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would apply certain restrictions on between-tenancy rent increases to properties outwith a rent control area or exempt properties in a rent control area. The amendment would prevent landlords in those properties from setting an increased rent between tenancies if the rent for the property had increased in the previous tenancy within the past 12 months. I consider that restricting rent increases between tenancies is appropriate in areas where rent control has been deemed necessary. However, I do not consider that that would be a proportionate approach in places where rent controls have not been deemed necessary. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment, and I urge Ms Chapman not to move it.

Amendments 258 and 266, also in the name of Maggie Chapman, would mean that rent for private residential tenancies for properties that are outwith rent control areas and exempt properties in rent control areas could not be increased unless the property met minimum standards that were specified by Scottish ministers in regulations. Although I agree with Ms Chapman about the importance of all properties in the private rented sector complying with required standards, there are already standards and enforcement measures in place in relation to rented properties. Creating something additional to the existing repairing standard is unnecessary and would risk causing confusion for landlords and tenants. However, there is a discussion to be had on quality and repair in a later group, and I look forward to discussing those amendments.

I appreciate the challenge that Meghan Gallacher raises. She mentioned the on-going discussion and consultation on EPC standards, which is an important piece of work. I also recognise the challenge around some of those issues, particularly in rural and island areas.

Amendment 451, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would require the rent officer or the First-tier Tribunal, when making a determination of an open market rent as part of a rent adjudication, to have regard to information that is collected under amendments 449 and 450, which were debated previously. Amendment 449 would enable information to be requested from a landlord or tenant by a local authority for the purposes of providing data to support the determination of an open market rent under the Private Housing Tenancies (Scotland) Act 2016. Amendment 450 is an alternative to amendment 449, which would oblige the local authority to exercise the power.

It is not clear that that information is needed by rent officers or the First-tier Tribunal, as they already make determinations of open market rent without access to it. It is also not clear from the amendments how such a process could operate or how often information would need to be collected for that purpose. It would not only place an additional burden on local authorities, but place them in the awkward position of supporting rent officers and the FTT in the adjudication of rent, which is a role that they do not currently fulfil. I cannot therefore support amendment 451.

For those reasons, I ask Rachael Hamilton not to press amendment 214, and Mark Griffin and Maggie Chapman not to move their amendments in the group. If they are pressed and moved, I ask members of the committee to oppose them.

I accept that there is a point to be made. That is similar to some of the discussions that we have had in previous groups on exemptions or reasons to increase rents above the cap. That is exactly why this area is in the consultation. I appreciate that landlords are concerned that they might, for example, be put off investing money to make major improvements to properties if those improvements were not to be recognised. I take that issue very seriously. I am keen to see what happens in the consultation—I am sure that that point will come through, based on the discussions that I have already had with landlords’ representatives.

However, I am clear that the circumstances in which it would be appropriate for there to be increases above the cap should be set out through regulations and that that process should be supported by our on-going consultation. Therefore, I cannot support Willie Rennie’s amendments 29 to 46.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 216 and 217, and the consequential amendment 227, would enable the Scottish ministers to prescribe circumstances in which the restrictions on the setting of the initial rent in a previously let property in a rent control area could be removed. The bill will already provide powers for the Scottish ministers to create exemptions from the rent control or to set circumstances in which the rent cap can be exceeded. Those powers will address the issue that Ms Hamilton’s amendments seek to cover. Therefore, I cannot support those amendments.

Due to the on-going consultation and the regulations that the Government has committed to make in short order, I urge Willie Rennie not to press amendment 29 or to move his other amendments, and I ask Rachael Hamilton not to move her amendments. If that is not the case, I urge members not to support them.