³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I am particularly keen to work together in this area. I am in no way saying that Government drafting is perfect and, as the minister, I take responsibility for that, because it is for me to sign that off.

In relation to amendment 231, I think that we have the issue covered, but the discussions that we have had so far show that there is still disagreement about whether it is covered. Based on those discussions, I believe that we genuinely want to get to the same point, and I would be happy to work with Mr Simpson on that. If there are gaps, I am absolutely determined to close them before stage 3, because there is no point going through all this work if we do not get as robust a system as possible. I thank Mr Simpson for lodging his amendments so that we can absolutely test the proposals to breaking point to find out whether there are any gaps.

I thank the member for the interesting conversations that we have had on the matter. I reassure him that, as I understand it, a consultation on CPOs will start in September this year—I will get back to the member on the timing if I have not quite remembered it correctly.

The member has raised an interesting point about how the approach can go further, whether through compulsory sales orders or compulsory leasing orders, which have been discussed in other areas when we have looked at ways of tackling the housing emergency. All that is of interest to the Government.

I very much agree with the member that, although Glasgow has been at the forefront of using CPOs—indeed, a lot of local authorities can learn from what it has been doing—we can clearly do more in that area.

I am keen to work with Mr Sweeney on some of the points that have been raised in this discussion. I am not sure that the issue requires legislation, but his points about the best use of the current housing stock, and particularly about growing that housing stock, are exceptionally telling regarding his interest in Glasgow and will also have benefits further afield. I am keen to carry on discussions about what more can be done.

In a rent control area, a landlord will be prevented from increasing the rent under a private residential tenancy for the property more than once in a 12-month period, even if a new tenancy is granted in that time. Accordingly, tenants who are considering entering into a lease in a rent control area should have the information that they need to make informed decisions about renting a property. Therefore, the Scottish Government has lodged amendments 354 to 361 in relation to information that landlords must include in rental adverts for properties in rent control areas, unless those properties are exempt from rent control.

Together, amendments 355 and 358 will ensure that information about rent increases in the previous 12-month period and the most recent rent payable for the property is available to tenants who are looking to rent in a rent control area. That will help tenants to understand the earliest date on which the rent can be increased, which is an essential part of ensuring that the rent is applied correctly between tenancies. Amendment 360 will help a landlord to understand whether a previous rent increase is a relevant rent increase for the purposes of these advertisement requirements. That will also support the provision of the correct information in adverts.

Amendments 356, 357 and 359 require the advert to highlight to prospective tenants that the rent at the start of the lease may be different from the rent specified in the advert if there is a variation in the percentage change in the consumer prices index before the start of the lease. That change is necessary as a consequence of the amendments to set out a CPI-based rent cap formula in the bill, which were debated in group 5. These amendments will enhance the effective operation of the rent control measures in the bill and will ensure that tenants have the information that they need in order to exercise their rights and make informed decisions about taking on a tenancy.

Amendment 422, in the name of Mark Griffin, would require the provision of an inventory to all tenants before a tenancy commences. The provision of inventories is already common practice in the private rented sector, and, in instances in which a letting agent deals with a tenancy check-in, it is a requirement under the code of practice unless otherwise agreed in writing with the landlord. The Scottish Government’s easy-read notes, which must accompany the PRT model tenancy agreement, encourage landlords and tenants to create a detailed written inventory and schedule of condition at tenancy commencement. Therefore, the need for a statutory requirement is unclear. In addition, although it is in the best interests of tenants and landlords for an inventory to be completed, there would be difficulties involved in enforcing any mandatory requirement. I therefore ask the member not to move the amendment

Amendments 247 and 248, in the name of Daniel Johnson, would require private landlords, under a private residential tenancy, and social landlords, under a social tenancy, to provide tenants with information on the rent that is payable in each of the previous 36 months. Although I recognise the calls for improved data on rent to be made available, these amendments are not necessary. For the private rented sector, information on the previous rent payable is required by tenants only where a rent control area is in place and would be unnecessary for other tenants. We have already made provision, as part of rent control measures and through our own amendments, to ensure that tenants have the information that they need to know, such as when the first rent increase might take place. That will allow people to consider whether they want to take a tenancy on.

Where a tenancy is not in a rent control area, increases in rent are restricted to once in a 12-month period, and my amendments would prevent rent increases within the first 12 months of the tenancy. In addition, section 11 of the 2016 act already allows ministers to impose a duty on landlords or prospective landlords to provide the tenant with information as specified in regulations, should that be required in the future.

In the social rented sector, information on rents is already publicly available to tenants and prospective tenants on the Scottish Housing Regulator’s website, through its landlord comparison tool. That enables a tenant or anyone with an interest to check the average rent of different sizes of landlords’ homes from 2014-15 onwards. Information on the regulator’s annual reports for each landlord also includes the average percentage increase in weekly rent for each year. Social rented sector tenants also have a right, under the 2001 act, to request information on their landlord’s policy and procedure in relation to the setting of rent and other charges, and the landlord has to provide that.

Therefore, amendments 247 and 248 are not required, and I ask the member not to press them.

Amendment 273, in the name of Maggie Chapman, seeks to introduce additional information that a landlord must provide to tenants alongside their written terms of tenancy before the day on which a new tenancy commences. I agree that it is vital that tenants are aware of and empowered to utilise their rights, including having access to relevant information that may affect their tenancy. Existing statutory requirements require specified information to be provided by the landlord free of charge to tenants at the point at which their tenancy commences. In addition, existing regulation-making powers in the 2016 act enable ministers to set out further information that must be provided by a landlord to a tenant. In my view, it is more appropriate to use those existing powers than to insert new requirements in the bill.

I have very little to say in winding up, but I recognise that we will need to raise awareness of new rights and changes and update tenancy documents and information as part of the implementation of the bill, should it be passed by the Parliament. Clearly, further signposting can be provided at this point. Although I do not agree with Maggie Chapman’s amendments, I think that she raises a very important point about ensuring that the tenant has the right information and that they obtain it in an appropriate timeframe. That is an important part of the work that we will need to look at in implementing the bill.

I press amendment 354.

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.

Amendments 29 to 31, along with amendments 34 to 46, in the name of Willie Rennie, would collectively remove the restrictions on rent increases between tenancies and the means by which a tenant could enforce those restrictions.

The overarching purpose of the rent control measures is to protect the social and economic interests of tenants by stabilising rents in areas where market rents have been increasing particularly steeply. Allowing unrestricted rent increases between tenancies would undermine that purpose and would reduce the protection that rent controls can offer for tenants.

Allowing unrestricted rent increases between tenancies could also lead to a two-tier market, with a difference between tenants who move tenancies and those who stay in tenancies for longer periods of time. Tenants might remain in a tenancy for longer than they would otherwise have done, even when that tenancy does not meet their needs, because their existing rent is more affordable than open market rents for new tenancies in the same area. There is a risk that that could reduce people’s ability to access suitable rented homes and could reduce the ability of tenants to move if their circumstances change. It could also make it harder for prospective tenants to obtain a lease for a rental property in a rent control area.

I understand Willie Rennie’s concerns and recognise that some landlords are concerned about restrictions between tenancies, particularly in circumstances in which the landlord has not increased the rent during a tenancy, has made significant improvements to the let property or is facing increased costs in offering the property for let. That is why the bill already includes provisions for ministers to make regulations allowing for properties to be excluded from rent control or for rents to be increased above the cap. I hope that the fact that our consultation on the potential use of those provisions has been published reassures Mr Rennie and landlords that we are considering the most appropriate way to approach the issues. However, removing the restrictions on pre-tenancy rent increases is not an approach that I can support.

Mr Rennie’s amendments 32 and 33 would change the terms under which a property that is let under a tenancy is to be considered the same as a property that was let under a previous tenancy. Those amendments would provide that the question of whether a property is the same must include consideration of the extent to which the property has been decorated or renovated since the end of the previous tenancy. That could allow a landlord to raise the rent between tenancies without restriction if they have undertaken very minor redecoration or renovation to the property between tenancies, which would not be in keeping with the aim of rent control.

As I have said, the bill already includes provisions for ministers to set out circumstances in which rents may be increased above the cap. An area that is being consulted on is the use of those powers when a landlord has made significant improvements to the let property, either during an existing tenancy or between tenants.

Much as I am tempted to get into an economic thesis on a Tuesday morning, I will refrain, but that is an important point. While we have talked about the specifics, it is also important to ensure that, in general, we provide as much certainty as we can to investors, because I recognise that not only the actions of Government, but the perceptions around that, are very important. It is important for the Scottish Government to encourage investment into Scotland and to encourage further private investment in housing; that is an important part of tackling the housing emergency.

Dealing with those aspects that you mention to ensure that we take into account what happens in the wider sector is exceptionally important, and that is why we are keen to give as much clarity as possible.

To return to my comments, CPI plus 1 per cent is in line with what some stakeholders in the sector have been calling for. Stakeholders, including the Scottish Property Federation and the Association for Rental Living, welcomed the clarity that was provided by our statement in October last year, in which we confirmed the form of the rent cap that we are proposing through these amendments.

As it is not only the policy intention of rent control to reduce rents, if the total percentage determined under the formula is less than 0 per cent, the rent cap would be set instead at 0 per cent. As the form of the rent cap will be set out in the bill, several consequential or clarifying amendments are required. Amendments 281 to 301 and amendments 334 to 353 are necessary now that we are proposing to set out the form of the cap in the bill itself; they will ensure that all relevant sections of the bill interact appropriately with the new provisions that we have set out. Amendment 327 will make a minor technical adjustment to the wording of section 18.

I turn to the other amendments in the group. Amendments 47 to 50, in the name of Ben Macpherson, would let landlords in rent control areas who have not increased the rent for their property in the preceding 24 months set the initial rent for a new tenancy at the open market rate. I understand the intention behind those amendments, but I am clear that the circumstances in which rent can be raised above the rent cap should be set out in regulations, informed by consultation with those who are affected, as I mentioned earlier.

Amendment 77, in the name of Graham Simpson, would provide that regulations that are made under the power that would be created by amendment 48, in the name of Ben Macpherson, would be subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendments 61 to 64, 78 and 79, in the name of Graham Simpson, would create a process by which a landlord in a rent control area could increase the initial rent for a tenancy to open market rent where the final rent in the preceding tenancy was more than 10 per cent below open market rent.

Daniel Johnson’s amendments 61A, 61B, 63A, 64A, 64B and 64C would amend Graham Simpson’s amendments so that the process can be used by landlords only when the previous rent was no less than 10 per cent below open market rent.

Again, I understand very clearly that the intent behind the amendments is to recognise situations in which landlords have not increased rents such that they have fallen behind market levels. However, the amendments would enable some landlords to increase the rent regardless of whether there had been a rent increase in the preceding 12 months, and that would be inconsistent with the aim of limiting rent increases for a property in rent control areas to once per year. Therefore, I cannot support the amendments, but I can confirm that issues with regard to landlords charging below market rent have been included for consideration in the consultation that was published recently.