Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank Alexander Stewart for that intervention—he is right to say that we must look at the practicalities. The intention of the Government’s amendments is to ensure that we have a robust set of data that will allow rent control to function effectively and efficiently. Regardless of whether members agree with rent control, the fact is that, if the bill is passed, we need the system to work effectively and efficiently, so we need to collect enough data for it to be robust. However, we are also required to ensure that we take a value-for-money approach and that we take cognisance of the impact on individual landlords, because we do not want to put them off entering or staying in the private rented sector.

On the basis that Meghan Gallacher and I are keen to ensure that there is clarity on a number of issues in the bill, will she join me in recognising that the Government and—I hope—her party do not want to include purpose-built student accommodation in the bill? If anything has caused that to happen, I hope that members will be able to work together to rectify that at stage 3, if required.

I hope that Willie Rennie heard me say in my remarks that I take the issue very seriously.

The points that he has raised are exceptionally important and have been made directly to me by the sector, loud and clear. I am keen to pick them up at speed in the consultation to provide clarity, just as I hope that I did last Thursday during portfolio questions, when I was absolutely clear that the Scottish Government has no intention of doing anything in the bill to bring in the PBSA sector. Indeed, if anything was done on that basis in last week’s committee meeting, we would work with members to seek to amend that at stage 3.

Good morning. The amendments in this group relate to the amount by which landlords can increase rent, where a rent control area is in force, and include Government amendments in the name of Paul McLennan to set out the form of the rent cap in the bill. The amendments also touch on concerns about the impact of rent controls on the circumstances of individual landlords and where it might be appropriate to allow additional increases above the level of the cap. I recognise those concerns, and I continue to engage with landlord representative organisations and others in the sector.

Section 14 of the bill includes a power for Scottish ministers to make regulations that allow for rents to be increased above the level of the rent cap in specified cases. The aim is to ensure that, where appropriate, the individual circumstances of landlords who might be disproportionately impacted by rent control can be taken into account. I fully agree on the importance of providing clarity to the sector as soon as possible about how that will be accomplished, and I recognise that some stakeholders would prefer that that detail was set out in primary legislation. However, it is essential that decisions on that are informed by consultation, to ensure that the potential impact of the use of that power is fully understood and that measures are developed in a way that is fair, is robust against challenge and can be clearly set out in legislation.

I have listened to the calls for clarity from tenants, landlords and investors about the implementation of rent control, which is why the Scottish Government has recently published a consultation to support the consideration of how the regulation-making powers could be used. That will ensure that the impact of any decisions on the use of those powers is fully understood and that any measures are framed in a way that is clear and proportionate. Bringing forward the consultation to a point before the time when it might have been anticipated—for example after the bill had completed its passage through the Parliament—will allow us to provide the clarity that is being sought as soon as possible and will support us to bring forward any secondary legislation at the earliest opportunity following royal assent.

I want to make it clear that I am completely convinced of the need to use powers in the bill to exempt, where appropriate, certain categories of property from rent control and to allow rent increases above the level of the cap in certain circumstances. That is important to ensure that we continue to encourage investment in Scotland and in housing. However, that must be supported by consultation that ensures that the impact of any such measures is fully understood and that our actions do not create any unintended consequences, taking into account the views of everyone with an interest.

I give the absolute assurance that the consultation is due to close soon and that we anticipate it to be one of the absolute priorities of the Government to move forward with the analysis of the consultation responses and the regulations thereafter. I absolutely wish to reiterate the importance of moving at pace on this matter, which is why we brought the timescale for the consultation forward. The consultation has happened at this point to ensure that we provide clarity as soon as we possibly can. I absolutely accept that that is integral to encouraging investment in housing.

May I just come in on that point?

The debate on the group has been really useful. It has brought to light once again the necessity of robust data and the fact that such data is required for the bill to be effective. I thank members for lodging their amendments and for the discussion that we have had.

Some members have suggested that they are interested in taking part in the discussions that will happen over the summer. I assure Carol Mochan, Maggie Chapman, Meghan Gallacher, Emma Roddick and anyone else who I have forgotten about that they are invited to take part in those discussions, and I thank them for their continuing interest.

Today, I have heard clearly once again that, despite the Government lodging a number of amendments after listening to the concerns that were set out in the committee’s stage 1 report, people still have concerns. It is important that we have further detailed discussions and that we do so in a way that ensures that the views of local government colleagues and landlords are heard. We seem to be in collective agreement that we want the legislation to work for tenants, councils and landlords and to ensure that we can collect robust data in a cost-effective manner, recognising the burdens that we will be placing on landlords. I will continue to focus on that area over the summer.

I will address a couple of points of detail. As I mentioned earlier, we are already moving to collect more data on advertised rents at local authority level. The powers that we propose in the amendments that are before the committee today will allow the Government to supplement that with information about in-tenancy rents. It is important that we engage with local authorities and, as I said, members as we move through the practicalities of that, because members are quite right to point to the need for information about rents not only as advertised but as a tenancy is continuing.

On the level of fines, the maximum penalty of £1,000 is in line with level 3 of the offences, penalties and powers of enforcement guidance and it is the normal maximum penalty for obstructing a person who is performing a statutory duty. That is why that level is designated in the bill and is what the Government is proposing. If that detail and reasoning still leaves members with concerns, I am happy to continue discussions on the matter, but that is the basis for the £1,000 figure.

I will leave it there, convener. I look forward to the discussions, if members wish to take part in them.

It is very important that the Government does all that it can to help people with the continuing cost of living crisis, which is exactly why the 2025-26 budget allocates more than £3 billion to policies that tackle poverty and the cost of living. We know that many of our constituents are still struggling with energy costs, food costs and rent, which is why the Government is determined to continue to provide that investment.

I recognise the point that you made, convener, in that the Scottish Fiscal Commission forecast in December 2023 that benefits would be uprated by 3.3 per cent in April 2025. However, given that inflation had fallen by September 2024, the CPI rate was 1.7 per cent, which is the rate that is in the regulations. The cost of the benefit change is about £110 million, which is lower than the forecast from December 2023 but is still a substantial investment.

In essence, that change does not ease the pressure on the social security budget. Clearly, we take the SFC’s forecasts very seriously and consider how they change over time. That is all taken into account in our discussions on what the budget that is eventually presented to the Parliament should look like. The budget that was presented to the Parliament contained the inflation rate that is set out in the regulations, so the changes were already taken into account during our budget deliberations before the budget was introduced.

The social security budget is demand led, so we appreciate that the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s forecasts are exceptionally important as we look to the Scottish Government’s budgets for future years. Clearly, the implications, which the committee has discussed previously, are stark. Expenditure on social security is rising, and the Fiscal Commission continues to expect that expenditure to rise. Much of that is due to UK changes that will also see an increase in social security benefits at a UK level, and which will therefore be covered by block grant adjustments.

However, we will also see additional costs coming to the Scottish budget because of the decisions that the Government has taken to support low-income families through the Scottish child payment, and the ability for us to handle child disability payment and adult disability payment in a different way. We need to take account of that as we move forward.

The committee will be well aware that the Scottish Government is required to balance its budget. Therefore, we need consider very carefully what the Fiscal Commission is forecasting and how we will deal with that in future years.

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government has made clear through the work that she is doing on fiscal sustainability—on which I am working closely with her—that we will continue to keep those matters very closely under review as we move forward with future years’ budgets.

At this stage, there certainly does not seem to be a desire for or a move towards having a carers allowance supplement, as we do.

As we move forward, we will be changing the way that we actually provide the carers allowance supplement, once case transfer has concluded. However, it was the first change that we undertook under the devolution of social security, because we recognised that carers need that additional support.

Clearly, it would be up to the UK Government to take its own decisions on that, but we have laid out quite clearly the direction of travel in which we would like to move with regard to supporting carers in different ways, in addition to what the UK Government would do. As the committee knows, those ways would therefore have to be found within the Scottish Government budget and would not be covered by block grant adjustments. Therefore, what the UK Government does matters. I hope that it will consider providing that wider support for carers, but I am not aware that it is doing so.