���˿���

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.

As are the members who lodged the amendments in this group, the Government is determined to bring forward a system of rent control that supports the stabilisation of rents for tenants while ensuring that there is a balanced approach that provides appropriate protection for the property rights of landlords and supports investment in the development of rented homes. Although some amendments do not quite strike the balance that is needed, I absolutely recognise the importance of the issues that have been raised—in particular, those that have been raised by Maggie Chapman and Emma Roddick—about the need for tenants to understand their rights and be able to enact those should they so wish. I understand in particular the importance of allowing sufficient time for tenants to challenge a rent increase that they feel is not in line with the rules, as Emma Roddick set out.

That is why we lodged Government amendments 399 and 400, in the name of Paul McLennan, which would affect tenants in properties that are not covered by rent control. Those amendments would increase from 21 days to 30 days the period during which a tenant in an area that is not rent controlled or in an exempt property can refer a proposed increase to the rent officer. The amendments are designed to assist tenants to make use of their rights to challenge a rent increase that they see as excessive. I consider that extending the window to 30 days is a proportionate means of achieving that.

I turn to the amendments that have been lodged by members.

Emma Roddick and Maggie Chapman have set out very strong points on that.

Amendment 138, in the name of Emma Roddick, and amendments 161, 162, 201 and 202, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would extend the length of the period in which a tenant can challenge a rent increase notice. Amendment 138 would give the tenant up to 42 days to notify the landlord that they intend to refer a rent increase to the rent officer, and amendments 161 and 162 would give the tenant up to one year to notify the landlord of an intended referral to the rent officer or tribunal. Amendments 201 and 202 would give the tenant another year to make a referral.

If some of those amendments are agreed to, the tenant would have up to two years to challenge a rent increase notice. That would leave landlords and tenants facing a long period of uncertainty regarding the rent that is applied. Although I agree with the principle that tenants should have sufficient time to challenge an increase, extending the period beyond the current combined period of 63 days could create significant uncertainty for landlords and tenants.

However, I recognise the concerns that members have raised, and I accept that we have perhaps not quite got that balance correct yet, as Emma Roddick has set out. I am happy to discuss with members what might be necessary to ensure that tenants have enough time to challenge the increase but in a way that does not create undue uncertainty for tenants and landlords. Given the Government’s willingness to work through that process with Ms Roddick and Ms Chapman, I ask them not to move their amendments.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 218, 219 and 228 would change the provisions that regulate how frequently the rent may be increased for a property in a rent control area. Where a property in a rent control area is not a previously let property, it is not subject to the rent cap at the start of the tenancy. For those tenancies, the landlord is prevented from increasing the rent in the first 12 months.

The bill sets out a power for ministers to prescribe circumstances in which increases in the first 12 months would be permitted. Amendments 218, 219 and 228 would expand that power to prescribe the circumstances in which the landlord could increase the rent more frequently than once a year, including in circumstances that are considered to be an emergency. The amendments could result in some tenants in a rent control area being subjected to more rent increases more frequently than other tenants. I consider that allowing more frequent rent increases would undermine the intention of the bill’s rent control measures. I therefore urge Rachael Hamilton, or Alexander Stewart on her behalf, not to press amendment 218 or move amendments 219 and 228. If he does so, I urge members not to support them.

Amendment 565, in the name of Mark Griffin, would disapply the rules on rent control for any tenancy in which the landlord is a registered social landlord, a subsidiary of the registered social landlord or any one of three named corporate bodies. I very much recognise that the intention is to exempt mid-market rents, which we have spoken about in relation to amendments in previous groups. Although I acknowledge the need to protect the delivery of such tenancies, that is best done through the consultation that we have previously discussed in committee. For that reason, I cannot support Mr Griffin’s amendment 565, but I encourage the mid-market rent providers to make that exact point in the consultation, because Mr Griffin’s points require further airing during that process.

Absolutely. Mid-market rent and build to rent are among the areas of key focus for other stakeholders, in particular tenants and their representatives, that we have discussed. I assure Meghan Gallacher that work to encourage those exact points to be made is on-going.

Amendment 220, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, would require that rent increase notices for private residential tenancies in rent control areas set out the reasons for the proposed rent increase. It is not clear what benefit that would provide for tenants. Under the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016, a tenant with a private residential tenancy can refer a proposed rent increase to a rent officer for adjudication, and the rent officer will determine the rent with reference to the factors that are set out in the relevant sections of the act. Those factors do not include consideration of the reason for the rent increase.

I am of the view that requiring all landlords with private residential tenancies to provide that information to tenants when increasing the rent would be an unnecessary intrusion into the landlord’s privacy with no obvious benefit to tenants, and there would clearly be an increase in the bureaucracy and requirements for private landlords. In addition, there would be significant resource implications in relation to the administration of such information. I urge her not to move the amendment.

Amendments 494 to 496, in the name of Maggie Chapman, seek to introduce an adjudication process that would include consideration of market rents and property quality when a tenant in a rent control area challenges an increase. Currently, rent increases in rent control areas will be limited in line with the cap, and the reference in the bill to the rent officer is to confirm that that is the case. Ms Chapman’s amendments 497 to 499 are similar to amendments 494 to 496 but would apply in cases in which a landlord or a tenant requests a review of a rent officer’s determination of a proposed increase.

The amendments effectively seek to override the rent cap and would instead create a subjective process that goes beyond the rent cap and the current process of applying open market rent for properties outwith rent control areas. The current proposals are the correct approach and provide clarity to investors and landlords, and I therefore cannot support the amendments.

I thank all members who have lodged amendments in the group for the discussions that I have had with them in the run-up to today, which have informed the Government’s thinking greatly. I apologise in advance for the length of my speaking note on the group, but it covers a number of amendments that have been lodged by different members, so I ask colleagues to bear with me.

I will first address amendment 231, in the name of Paul McLennan, which will enable Awaab’s law to be introduced in Scotland. I will also comment on the related amendments that have been lodged by Graham Simpson and Emma Roddick.

The Scottish Government is committed to delivering Awaab’s law in Scotland, and I consider that amendment 231, coupled with the use of powers in existing legislation to make provision for the private sector, will achieve that aim. The amendment will enable the Government to implement the equivalent of Awaab’s law in Scotland in the social rented sector, so that social landlords must deal with issues such as damp and mould in tenants’ homes in a timely manner. The amendment will expand existing powers in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 to give ministers the ability to impose timeframes on social landlords to investigate disrepair and commence repairs.

For context, I note that Awaab’s law in England will have 28 defined hazards. The UK Government has been taking a phased approach since Awaab’s law was introduced, in July 2023. We want to ensure that landlords and tenants are clear about their respective rights and duties, which is why we will have further engagement with stakeholders later this year to fully understand the types of repairs that should be included, as well as appropriate timescales for investigating and commencing those repairs. Members have rightly referred to damp and mould, but other hazards will also be addressed in the consultation.

As well as placing requirements on social landlords, Scottish ministers are committed to bringing forward equivalent requirements in the private rented sector after further consultation. Those can be delivered under existing powers via the repairing standard in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006, which is why no similar amendment has been lodged for the private rented sector. However, I stress that we are consulting not on the “if” but on the “how”, as per social rented sector amendments that we will then take forward.

The issues that have arisen in England, which have been raised in the consultation, demonstrate why consultation is required. It is an exceptionally complex situation. To take just one issue, we want to make sure that the timescales are as stringent as possible but we do not want to set unrealistic timetables that a good landlord would be genuinely unable to meet. If you will forgive me, Maggie, I hope that the rest of my speaking note will deal with some of the details. If it does not, I will certainly be happy to discuss the matter further with you.

I cannot support the related amendments that have been lodged by Graham Simpson and Emma Roddick. Mr Simpson’s amendment 231A would change amendment 231 so that the power to make regulations would become a duty. That would require the Scottish ministers to make regulations on every issue in section 27(3) of the 2001 act, although it may be necessary to cover only some of those issues. A technical point is that it is not entirely within the gift of Scottish ministers to make regulations that are subject to the affirmative procedure, as those regulations first have to be approved by the Parliament.

Mr Simpson’s amendment 231B is already catered for by amendment 231, which enables provisions to be made in connection with the right of a tenant to have qualifying repairs carried out, including provision that may require the inspection and approval of any repairs to address issues relating to damp or mould. However, from my conversations with Mr Simpson—for which I thank him—I appreciate that he remains concerned that there is still a gap in the Government’s amendments. I am convinced that there is not, but I believe that there is room for discussion, because he and I are very much on the same page of wanting to make sure that the system is as robust as possible. I am therefore happy to work with him in the run-up to stage 3 if I cannot convince him that no change is required.

Amendment 443, in the name of Graham Simpson, would oblige the Scottish ministers to lay draft regulations under section 27 of the 2001 act within six months of amendment 231 coming into force. That would remove Scottish ministers’ discretion, thereby restricting our ability to consult meaningfully with stakeholders and engage with the UK Government. I believe that there would be a great danger of making poor regulations as a result of a lack of meaningful and robust consultation.

Amendments 444 and 446, in the name of Graham Simpson, would oblige the Scottish ministers to make regulations to ensure that, in relation to damp or mould, private landlords would be under repairing obligations equivalent to those of social landlords. Emma Roddick’s amendment 444A would require those regulations to include a process whereby a private landlord would have to make a compensatory payment to tenants if they had failed to meet their repairing obligations. Amendments 444, 444A and 446 are not necessary, as powers in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 and the 2006 act already enable existing private sector standards to be modified, enabling the introduction of Awaab’s law. The repairing standard can already be enforced via a rent relief order, which compensates a tenant with a rent reduction if their house fails the repairing standards.

I appreciate that I have already spoken for some time. I reassure Graham Simpson that I very much support the policy intent behind many of the amendments, but I do not think that they are required. There are other ways to achieve that policy intent. I would like to offer that slight caveat to the point that he has made.