Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the cabinet secretary for explaining why she will not support amendment 214, but I disagree with her. The point that she makes is about increasing bureaucracy and she believes that my amendment will do that. However, amendment 214 seeks to reduce bureaucracy. The provision of clear evidence by landlords will reassure tenants and that will avoid any unnecessary reference to the rent officer or the First-tier Tribunal.

Amendment 207 would provide much-needed clarity to references to “rent payable” under part 1 of the bill, on the

“designation of rent control areas”.

The amendment would introduce a clear definition of “rent payable”, which is essential to ensure that rent comparisons between properties are accurate and meaningful, especially in rural areas, where utility arrangements can differ significantly.

Under the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016, there is no distinction between rent and other charges. However, as the cabinet secretary has set out, in rural tenancies, rent often includes payments for water, sewerage or electricity services that are supplied privately due to the lack of mains infrastructure. Because the 2016 act prohibits passing on service charges, landlords often bundle those costs into the rent, which creates confusion.

I disagree with the cabinet secretary. She misses the point, because the failure to separate those charges for privately supplied services will undermine the accuracy of rental data and the fairness of rent assessments. She said that future regulation-making processes would make my amendments redundant. I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary would identify how we could separate those charges and ensure the accuracy of rental data, so that there is equity between those who receive the bundled charges that I have described and those who receive and pay for their services through council tax. As I have said, in urban areas, those services are normally paid for by the tenant directly through council tax or their utility bills.

Amendment 207 would ensure that only the true rent—the rent that is payable for the property itself—is counted as “rent payable”. Charges for essential services in areas without mains access would be identified separately, not hidden in the rent. That change would allow the collection of more accurate data across local authorities, fairer comparisons across the rental market, and greater transparency for both tenants and landlords.

I understand what the cabinet secretary is saying, but, with respect, the lodged amendments have been agreed in consultation with quite a number of those who are concerned that the exemptions should be brought forward without having to have a consultation.

I agree with Meghan Gallacher that we would like to see exemptions in primary legislation rather than wait for the consultation, which has been worrying the sector.

Amendment 208 would allow ministers to exempt properties from rent controls if significant upgrades, such as energy efficiency improvements, have been made. A crucial point to recognise is that a property before improvements is fundamentally different from the same property after upgrades. That transformation naturally warrants a revised rental valuation.

Why does that matter? It is because housing providers repeatedly told the committee that rent controls risk discouraging investment in property upgrades, as they fear that they will not be able to recover the costs. This exemption would solve two problems. First, it would give landlords a fair route to adjust rents when they have generally improved the property. Secondly, it would ensure that tenants will benefit from better, more energy-efficient homes.

Most upgrades happen between tenancies, and allowing reasonable rent adjustments during that window would create a clear incentive to invest in quality improvements. Rent controls should not be a barrier to better housing, and this exemption would turn them into a catalyst for upgrades to Scotland’s housing stock.

Amendment 209 would allow ministers to exempt properties from rent controls if they are let at rates comparable to social or local authority housing. Housing providers that offer rents in line with secure tenancies should be able to adjust them in step with local authority or social housing increases. Positive actions by landlords should be encouraged. Those rent levels are already well below market rates and in most cases any increases would still fall within rent control limits.

The exemption would act as a safety net, protecting providers that offer below-market rents from unexpected cost spikes, especially those that affect the wider social housing sector. It would reassure landlords who choose to charge low rents that they will not be penalised for doing so through rent control.

Amendments 210 would build on amendment 209 to expand the scope of rent control exemptions to include properties for which rent is already restricted for other reasons. It would cover cases like reduced rent agreements during periods of financial hardship—for example, the pandemic—or housing provided to a former employee at a peppercorn rate. Those are situations in which rent has intentionally been kept below market value for valid and often temporary reasons. The amendment would give housing providers a fair opportunity to reset rents to market levels between tenancies, ensuring long-term sustainability without penalising past goodwill. The amendment would also ensure that providers that have acted responsibly and compassionately are not locked into artificially low rents indefinitely.

Amendment 211 directly addresses a key concern that has been raised by stakeholders, which is that rent control risks driving out investment. We have heard a lot about that today, especially with regard to new housing developments, from large-scale build-to-rent projects to small rural developments that are specifically for the local rental market. The message from the sector was, again, clear: without confidence in a fair return, developers will walk away—the build-to-rent market has illustrated that in recent years as investment has been redirected away from Scotland. Amendment 211 provides that confidence.

Scotland’s housing crisis is driven by a shortage of supply—not by affordability. Amendment 211 recognises that reality and would ensure that the bill supports, rather than stifles, the delivery of new rental homes. In practice, it would give investors and developers a green light to build in the knowledge that their ability to recover costs and earn a return will not be undermined by future rent control measures. The result would be more homes, more choice, and a stronger rental market—exactly what Scotland needs.

Amendment 212 is consequential on amendment 209.

Amendment 566 is consequential on amendment 211. It clarifies what is meant by “build-to-rent property” and outlines that the exemption would apply for the first two years after the development of the property has been completed. Following last week’s committee proceedings, I updated the amendment to include within its definition of build-to-rent property rural properties that are built for rent under a relevant tenancy. That ensures that rural developments that are built exclusively for rent are explicitly encompassed by the definition. Such rural developments are usually built out of necessity and are rarely economically viable. Nevertheless, they are critical to boost the supply of rental housing across rural Scotland.

There is some dubiety about when the consultation will be concluded and published and when we will be able to see that; the cabinet secretary said that herself. I am thinking about what the situation will be if we do not move some of the amendments that we have lodged on exemptions. I know that we do not have the support of the Greens, but we may have other support. The concern is that, if we do not see the shape of the published consultation, we will not be able to bring forward the amendments at stage 3. That worries me slightly, because it is such an important aspect of the bill.

As I am sure that the minister will know from his constituency mailbag, there are people who want to buy properties that are in a state of disrepair but who are discouraged from doing so because they are concerned that they would be liable for ADS. Amendment 225 would provide an exemption for up to 12 months from the time of purchase to allow an individual to bring such a property back into a habitable state. Obviously, that would allow us to have more housing stock at a time of a housing crisis.

I wanted to intervene on you when you were discussing amendment 203, but my intervention is relevant to what you have just talked about.

Obviously, some rental properties are managed by property organisations that must deal with different local authorities across Scotland. How can tenants and landlords understand when the designation of a rent control area will take place if local authorities are not consistent in their approach? Surely that does not lend itself to good business practice and to the consistency and clarity that those property organisations need. That consistency and clarity would grow the economy, protect jobs and ensure that those organisations do not come out of the market because of all the confusion.

May I intervene again? I just need to be clear on this. Are you saying that the Government will encourage local authorities to submit reports at a fairly similar time? What is it that you are encouraging, and is it just encouragement—that is, that you will say something rather than putting that into legislation?

Amendment 224 would modify the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (Scotland) Act 2013 to repeal schedule 2A, which makes provision for the ADS, and section 26A, which introduces that schedule. Other changes to the act would remove references to schedule 2A. We all know what ADS is, but I want to set out that we should not be doing things that cause more harm than good.

In the recent budget, the Scottish National Party made the decision to increase ADS from 6 per cent to 8 per cent. I will quote the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which published “Assessing Scottish tax strategy and policy”. It noted that

“Taxing property transactions is an exceptionally damaging way to raise revenue.”

It went on to state that

“The increase in the ADS makes a bad tax bigger and even more harmful.”

It also highlighted that the increase in ADS will make it

“more difficult and expensive for those who remain in the rental sector – tenants (who are likely to face higher rents as a result of the policy) as well as landlords.”

It is highly damaging. It is a vindictive tax on the housing sector. It unfairly targets landlords and second-home owners without any consideration of the wider implications of the tax or any meaningful solution to address the root cause of our housing crisis. Amendment 224 aims to restore a functional housing market in which the private sector can work with the Government to tackle housing shortages.

I want to speak to Ross Greer’s amendments in the group. He kindly took an intervention from me and addressed my question. However, this bill is not the place for those amendments. He did not address how the amendments can achieve his aims. The point that I tried to make was that if those amendments were adopted—to remove the NDR and put an additional surcharge on council tax rates—it would be impossible to access schemes such as the small business bonus scheme. The amendments would mandate higher rates specifically for the self-catering and short-term lets sector, which is a really important sector.

Yes, of course.