���˿���

That is the risk in relation to how the bill has been developed and positioned alongside the consultation. I thank the cabinet secretary for moving the consultation forward, but I still question why the consultation was not conducted prior to stage 1 of the bill. That would have been a far better place for it to be, as that would have allowed us to know exactly what the sector is looking for, and it would then have been up to members to debate what could or could not be placed in primary legislation in the process of stage 2 and stage 3.

That is not where we are, and we need to deal with what is in front of us. It is imperative for all members to consider whether they want to move their amendments at this stage or whether they want to bring the amendments back at stage 3, should that be their intention. It is important to have these debates not just in the committee but also in the chamber, to make sure that we stand up and advocate for the sector that the bill will impact the most. It is imperative for members to come to that conclusion and to make sure that we raise the concerns that have been brought to us.

As Rachael Hamilton highlighted, a lot of the amendments in this group have been drafted alongside stakeholders, including representatives of the private, voluntary and independent sector and others. We need to bring this to a conclusion and get clarity from the cabinet secretary on what the Scottish Government expects to see in the bill.

In the interest of time, I will speak to Edward Mountain’s amendments in the group and then to my amendment 109, convener.

Amendment 153 is about information gathering. We have had quite a long discussion on that already, and the cabinet secretary has outlined her reasoning for not supporting the amendment at this stage due to a wider conversation that will happen in due course. For the interest of those who are following today’s proceedings, I note that amendment 153 seeks to include the number of bathrooms in the house in the information that is sought by local authorities. Similarly, amendment 154 would include information about the floor area of the house. Those amendments are about making sure that we obtain more information and data that is relevant to rental properties and to those who will be renting those properties.

Amendment 155 would require the information that is collected by local authorities to include the quality of the property, the required repairs and the EPC rating. I mentioned EPCs in earlier contributions. The information that amendment 155 would require will be important once we know more about the EPC review, and I hope that that can be teased out as part of the conversation that we will have during the summer. EPC compliance has been an area of interest not just for the Government but for the committees that cover that work.

Amendment 156 would allow the local authority’s landlord register to be used as an alternative means of gathering data to ensure that it is accessible, usable and collected in the appropriate manner.

I understand that the cabinet secretary has outlined her reasoning for not supporting those amendments, but I believe that we should look more widely at the landlord register and how it is used, and at ways in which we can do things differently to improve the overall aims of section 15.

Finally, I turn to my amendment 109, which, following the discussions that have taken place, I will not move. I emphasise that data is crucial to the bill. Whatever we do moving forward, we know that we are not in as good a place as we need to be when it comes to scrutinising particular areas of legislation because we do not have that data readily available. However, I take on board the issue of local government resourcing and how that will be put in place should certain amendments be voted for and agreed to today or at stage 3. Of course, we need to be mindful that, at a time when local authority funding has depleted, particularly in recent years, we should not put more financial pressures on local authorities to try to achieve something that they might not be able to achieve.

We need to look at the issue in the round. I do not necessarily believe that we will get the exact steer or direction today, but I welcome the comments from the cabinet secretary and other colleagues on the issue.

Yes, I will work alongside the cabinet secretary, Willie Rennie and other members in relation to that point.

It is important that, as we move forward, we make sure that we listen to concerns from the sector and, in particular, from investors. We do not want to stifle the market. Since stage 1, the position of the Scottish Conservatives has principally been to oppose rent controls but, should they be introduced, to make sure that we take an appropriate and measured approach. That is the best way of moving forward. I welcome the tone of the debate today and the exchanges from all members.

Amendment 102, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 150 moved—[Meghan Gallacher].

Given the discussions that we have had, I will move the amendment.

Amendment 107 moved—[Meghan Gallacher]—and agreed to.

Section 14—Properties subject to modified rent control area restrictions

Amendment 294 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville].

I realise that this could look as though I am making an intervention through an intervention, but I am still none the wiser as to which ���˿��� that would include, which amendments have been completely thrown out, and which amendments the minister is likely to work on with ���˿���. As a voting member of the committee, I am unclear as to the direction. Therefore, in my view, it is unclear how committee members should vote and whether ministers are willing to work alongside colleagues on amendments, or whether the Government is suggesting that it would oppose the amendments.

I thank the minister for agreeing to support Edward Mountain’s amendment 142. I believe that it is a step in the right direction to ensure that the Scottish ministers must issue guidance to all local authorities on rent conditions reports. That is a way to strengthen the bill, and I will therefore move amendment 142 on behalf of Edward Mountain.

As the minister pointed out, Edward Mountain’s amendment 143 would mean that the guidance would have to include provisions about “eligible reasons” for rent controls. I believe that the proposal in the amendment to look at the scope for introducing rent controls in specific local authority areas or across the board is sensible. We need to tease out some of the reasons why rent controls may or may not be brought in. Edward Mountain would welcome the opportunity to work with the minister on that ahead of stage 3.

That is all that I have to say on Edward Mountain’s amendments but, before I finish, I want to raise a concern about the lack of attendance from members who want to be here. Because his committee meets at the same time as this one, Edward Mountain has not been able to attend today. I know that the Parliament is currently talking about the processes and functionality of committees but, if the proposed heat in buildings bill, for example, reaches this committee, it will have a heavy focus on net zero and energy, which relate to another committee that meets at the same time as this one. I hope that that can be reflected on, because there are members who want to attend the committee to speak to their amendments.

It will not come as any shock to members to hear that the Scottish Conservatives are opposed to rent controls in principle, as we believe that they will further harm an already delicate housing sector. This stage 2 consideration is critical for the potential of new investment in purpose-built rental accommodation in Scotland. The changes that we make at committee and at stage 3 will shape the housing sector’s future.

Scotland must be investable—otherwise, the Parliament will collectively fail to provide enough supply to meet demand in future. The pipeline of new-build rent projects is now frozen, and there has been a 0 per cent increase in the number of planned projects over the past year. Build-to-rent construction activity has fallen by 26 per cent over the past year, as schemes already under development have been completed. Schemes and planning have stagnated due to uncertainty, and investors remain unwilling to commit to new schemes.

Build-to-rent is an investment opportunity, and it should be additional to the delivery of private homes for sale and affordable and social housing. It is an opportunity to significantly boost housing supply that has been frustrated by years of sudden policy interventions by the Scottish Government and uncertainty on the long-term system of rent controls.

To put the issue into perspective, Scotland has delivered only 3,485 build-to-rent-led schemes in more than a decade. That compares to 122,279 completed and operational homes in England during the same period. We are in a housing emergency—Parliament has declared a housing emergency—so we cannot afford more ill-thought-out policies such as permanent rent controls.

I appreciate that committee members might not agree with the position that I am laying out to remove rent controls. However, I believe that this is an opportunity to have an open discussion in which we talk about opportunities to grow the mixed-tenured housing that Scotland desperately needs.

Rent controls will not sufficiently address issues that the private rented sector faces. My concern is that billions of pounds’ worth of investment into new-build homes will be held back due to this move. On that point, I need only refer to the last time that rent controls were introduced. According to a survey by the Scottish Association of Landlords, 17 per cent of landlords said that they had sold their rental properties or were considering selling them.

Rent controls have discouraged landlords from investing in the upkeep of their rental properties. According to the same survey, 44 per cent of landlords have reduced or stopped spending money on maintenance and improvements since rent controls were introduced.

It has also become more difficult for new renters to find housing. According to the Scottish Government, since the rent control introduction, the average time that it takes for a new tenant to find a property has increased from 12 to 16 weeks. Reduced supply, a disincentive for investment, exacerbation of the housing problem and other unintended consequences could await the private rented sector as a result of rent controls.

For those reasons, I have lodged the amendments in this group. I ask members to think carefully about the decision and what impact rent controls could have on those who provide housing, as well as about opportunities to ensure that we have enough housing stock for people who need homes.

I note that the minister has supported the removal of section 13, which relates to exemptions. That is probably the only area where we could find consensus in relation to rent controls being made permanent, but members will have lodged amendments on exemptions—I have done so, too. Through this debate, that issue must be made clear—we need to try to tease out from the minister what exemptions, if any, will be applicable and which ones he is sympathetic to.

I understand that there is on-going consultation on exemptions. I hope that the minister will realise that he has his work cut out for him in trying to navigate the issues and achieve a balance in the bill and its processes.

I move amendment 85.

As Rachael Hamilton said, amendment 133 would create a layer of protection for rural areas in which a rent control area is introduced. The local authority would conduct an assessment to highlight

“the impact that the level of rent and rate of increase in rent payable under relevant tenancies of properties has on properties, tenants and landlords”.

The minister must put the needs of rural Scotland front and centre as the Government seeks to change the private, voluntary and independent sector. He will, of course, be aware that rented housing is vital to many of our rural economies, particularly in attracting workers to an area for seasonal work in sectors such as tourism, farming and forestry. The debate on rent controls has been heavily focused on urban areas, and that needs to change. Rural communities could be at real risk if the Scottish Government fails to take those important sectors into account.

I believe that the chief executive of Scottish Land & Estates, Sarah-Jane Laing, summarised the situation well when she said:

“Between the start of 2022 and the end of 2023, across 18 local authorities with rural areas, 11 saw decreases in the number of properties available for rental.

With the Scottish Government now seeking to move forward with rent caps, it needs to fully understand the further detrimental consequences this could have on rural rental provision before bringing forward the stage 2 amendments.”

Therefore, in relation to amendment 133, I ask the minister what specific engagement he has had with rural housing stakeholders on the issue. Is he inclined to support my amendment, which I believe would strengthen the support for rural communities?

Similar to amendment 133, my amendment 90 would strengthen the bill by ensuring that impacts on rural areas were considered and that such circumstances were addressed in the Scottish Government’s guidance. If that amendment is not agreed to today, I would be keen to discuss those issues with the minister to see whether we can make sure that they are covered in the guidance on the bill.

I turn to amendments 81 to 84. The bill will require local authorities to make periodic assessments of their rental markets. The Scottish Government is seeking to amend the end of the first reporting period from 30 November 2026 to 31 May 2027.

The proposed policy will replace the current option for local authorities to make rental assessments for the purpose of requesting that the Scottish ministers designate a rent pressure zone with a mandatory requirement for local authorities to make rental market assessments and recommendations as to whether to create a rent control area. Many stakeholders are concerned about whether there is effective and robust data collection, which remains an obstacle to local authority private rental market assessments and reports.

Amendments 81 to 84 would change the reporting period for assessing rent controls by each local authority area from five years, as stated in the bill as drafted, to four years, three years, two years or one year respectively. I believe that five years could be an extensive period for reporting on the impact of controls, and I seek further discussions with the minister to look at reducing the timeframe.

Through amendments 94 to 97, I seek clarity from the minister as to why he has opted for a five-year expiry date for regulations that designate a rent control area—unless those regulations are revoked—and as to what consultation he has undertaken with the PVI sector on expiry and reporting periods.

I want to follow up on the points that Rachael Hamilton has raised. The minister will be aware that landlords do not operate in only one local authority area—they operate in one, two, three or however many local authority areas in which they have properties. If local authorities are not producing these reports at the same time, how will that work? What additional strain will that put on the housing sector and landlords in the PVI sector, who will have to provide data to local authorities in order for them to produce those reports?

My colleague Graham Simpson has done a lot of work on this area of the bill. He has been speaking to student representatives and student boards, as I am sure other colleagues have throughout the process. We know about these issues and have done so for quite some time. It is not something new that has been brought to the table that individuals were not aware of. I understand that the review group sets its agenda, but, given that there is a housing bill, various parts of which relate directly to students, as was outlined in the stage 1 report, is Graham Simpson as frustrated as I am that, after this section is concluded, we will not know what amendments the minister is seeking to work with colleagues on ahead of stage 3? What does that mean for the recommendations that have already been clearly set out by the review group? Where does that leave students at the end of the day? Does Graham Simpson have any suggestions or thoughts on that?