���˿���

Meghan Gallacher has made a useful point about what can and should be in the public domain. It is important that we open up the information and data that are collected—indeed, that is why the Government has lodged the amendments—and I look forward to her taking part in the discussions over the summer to ensure that we test the system. It is important that we are able to test it before stage 3 to ensure that members who still remain concerned about, say, the system not collecting enough information or it collecting too much information and being overly cumbersome can come and have that discussion with me. They will then be able to come back with amendments at stage 3, should they so wish.

Amendment 137, in the name of Emma Roddick, and amendment 237, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would increase the potential financial penalty on landlords for failure to comply with requests for information from £1,000 to £10,000. However, I note that my amendments 324 and 325 seek to remove and replace sections 16 and 17, as a result of information-gathering powers being conferred on the Scottish ministers by amendments in the group. Similarly, Maggie Chapman’s amendments 324A and 325A seek to increase the relevant penalty to £10,000. Unfortunately, I cannot support the amendments, as I consider that they set a penalty that is too high in the context of a landlord’s conduct. I still believe that £1,000 represents a more proportionate penalty.

On that basis, I ask Emma Roddick and Maggie Chapman not to move their amendments and to work with me ahead of stage 3 if they still have concerns on the issue. From the work that the Government has done on the matter, I remain convinced that the penalty is at the right level.

Amendments 153 to 155, in the name of Edward Mountain, seek to make changes to the type of information that can be sought from landlords. I understand the purpose of the amendments, but I consider that amendments 305 to 313, in Paul McLennan’s name, provide a more comprehensive expansion of the list of information that can be requested from a landlord. The list that is proposed in amendments 305 to 313 is more consistent with the information that is collected by rent service Scotland to support decisions on rent adjudication. Amendments 305 to 313 are therefore more appropriate in the context of the information that is needed to support rent control, as they will deliver information that is more closely comparable with the data on advertised rents that rent service Scotland collects.

Amendments 156 and 157, in the name of Edward Mountain, would mean that the information that is requested by local authorities would be added to the landlord register. The primary purpose of landlord registration is to give councils a means to assess whether an individual is a fit and proper person to let property. I do not believe that adding that information to the landlord register would assist local authorities in making that assessment. The amendments could result in inconsistent information being held on different landlords, depending on whether a landlord has received a request for information. The amendments would also require further consequential amendments to the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004.

Although I acknowledge the intent behind the amendments and recognise that there could be benefits to using the landlord register as part of the data collection process, it is important to emphasise that the proposed changes would place significant additional burdens on landlords and on local authorities as operators of the landlord register. I do not consider that they are necessary in connection with rent control, and I believe that they could inadvertently make a fundamental change to the purpose of the landlord register without due consideration of the impact on its core purpose, which is ensuring that someone is a fit and proper person to be a landlord. Therefore, I cannot support the amendments.

Amendment 448, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would amend the bill to change the discretion of a local authority to a duty, which would mean that every local authority in Scotland would need to write to every landlord on the register to request all the information that is set out in section 15(2) of the bill. As I have previously set out, although I understand and support the strong desire for robust information about tenancies, I cannot support the amendment. It would remove the discretion of local authorities to seek the data that they deem to be necessary, and it would be costly and disproportionate to the level of data that is needed to inform rent control assessments.

Amendments 449 and 450, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would provide for data to be obtained from landlords for the purpose of being provided to the rent officer or the First-tier Tribunal to assist them in determining open market rent. 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 that information. It is also uncertain how such a process is intended to operate or how often information would be needed for that purpose. That would place an additional burden on local authorities, with potentially significant costs and no clear benefit, and I am unable to support the amendments.

Amendment 481, in the name of Carol Mochan, would require local authorities to provide the tenant with a copy of the information that they have obtained from a landlord. Although I recognise the intention behind the amendment, it would add a significant additional administrative burden and cost in relation to the collection of data. The concern is about the accuracy of the information that is provided by the landlord, but there are already powers in the bill for local authorities to request information from tenants. I therefore cannot support the amendment, as I do not believe that it is needed.

Amendment 482, also in the name of Carol Mochan, would remove the ability of the Scottish ministers to remove information from the list of information that can be requested from a landlord. That would remove the flexibility that the power was intended to create, and it would mean that primary legislation would be required to remove from that list any information that is no longer considered relevant. Regulations under section 15(7) are subject to the affirmative procedure, so there would be parliamentary scrutiny of any attempt to reduce the information that can be requested. I therefore cannot support amendment 482.

Finally, Carol Mochan’s amendments 483 to 486 would amend sections 16 and 17 of the bill to remove elements of discretion from the enforcement procedures behind the duties on landlords to provide information. Those amendments would remove an element of discretion from local authorities and, in certain cases, would create strict liability for a financial penalty, even when the First-tier Tribunal considered such a penalty to be inappropriate. I therefore cannot support those amendments.

Sections 15, 16 and 17 of the bill were drafted with the intention of ensuring that the powers for local authorities and the Scottish ministers support the collection of data on a proportionate basis and do not unnecessarily burden local authorities, landlords and tenants. My amendments in the group seek to enhance those powers while respecting the rights of landlords.

I understand the intent behind the amendments in the group, but I cannot support them, for the reasons that I have set out. I therefore urge Emma Roddick, Maggie Chapman, Edward Mountain, Carol Mochan and Meghan Gallacher not to move their amendments in the group and to work with me ahead of stage 3. If any of their amendments are moved, I ask members to oppose them and, instead, to support the amendments that have been lodged in the name of Paul McLennan.

I move amendment 303.

This group of amendments relates to the provisions in the bill that create a power for Scottish ministers to exempt certain properties from rent control by regulations. Although I cannot support the amendments in the group that have been lodged by other members, I agree with the importance of ensuring that full consideration is given to the circumstances in which it might be appropriate to make exemptions. That is why we published a consultation on the use of the powers to ensure that the impact on landlords and tenants of any exemption that might be provided for in regulations is fully understood.

I repeat what I said earlier: 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 that are above the level of the proposed rent cap in certain circumstances. Members have already raised many compelling arguments for that. However, that must be supported by consultation that ensures that the impact of such measures is fully understood and that our actions do not create any unintended consequences, taking into account the views of everyone who has an interest.

With reference to amendments in the group, our consultation asks specific questions about possible exemptions for mid-market rent and build-to-rent properties. Alongside that, there are opportunities for landlords who do not see their circumstances reflected in the specific questions to give us their views, and for tenants to give us their opinions on how the proposals will impact on them. We will consider all those points as they are proposed in the consultation.

I turn to amendments 329, 330 and 331 in the name of Paul McLennan. Amendments 329 and 331 will have the effect of moving the power to define an exempt property in section 13 of the bill so that it appears in other legislation alongside the rent controls to which it relates. That flows from previously debated amendments that would replace the power to set a rent cap in section 9 of the bill with the provision for a rent cap in the other legislation. The relocation of the power would make obsolete the existing power to define what is an exempt property in section 13. Therefore, I support Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 107, which was debated earlier, because it would remove the resulting obsolete section of the bill.

Amendment 330 will make a technical correction to the bill to change part of the title for the new part 4A of the 2016 act from “excluded” to “exempt”.

I turn to other amendments in the group. Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 102, Edward Mountain’s amendment 150 and Willie Rennie’s amendment 329A would create a duty for Scottish ministers to define an exempt property by affirmative regulations. However, those regulations cannot be made without the approval of the Scottish Parliament, meaning that compliance with the duty would not be entirely in the gift of Scottish ministers. I agree that it is essential that exemptions are provided for, but imposing that as a duty on Scottish ministers is not the right way to progress that. Accordingly, I urge members not to press or move amendments 102, 150 and 329A but, if they do so, I urge members of the committee not to support the amendments.

I turn to Meghan Gallacher’s amendments 103, 105 and 106, Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 208 to 212 and 566, Mark Griffin’s amendments 411 and 416 and Willie Rennie’s amendments 329B to 329D and 329G to 329I. Collectively, the amendments set out potential exemptions from rent control in the bill, covering properties that are let by subsidiaries of landlords, including those delivering mid-market rental properties, built-to-rent properties, properties that are subject to improvements, including energy efficiency, and properties that have been offered for rent at below-market rates. Although I absolutely understand the reasons behind the amendments, I do not think that such properties should be included as exemptions in the bill. The reason for that approach is that exemptions must be fully informed by consultation with stakeholders so that they are framed in a way that ensures that they disapply rent control in the appropriate circumstances and do not capture circumstances in which rent control should apply.

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.

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, 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.

This group of amendments relates to the provisions in the bill that create a power for Scottish ministers to exempt certain properties from rent control by regulations. Although I cannot support the amendments in the group that have been lodged by other members, I agree with the importance of ensuring that full consideration is given to the circumstances in which it might be appropriate to make exemptions. That is why we published a consultation on the use of the powers to ensure that the impact on landlords and tenants of any exemption that might be provided for in regulations is fully understood.

I repeat what I said earlier: 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 that are above the level of the proposed rent cap in certain circumstances. Members have already raised many compelling arguments for that. However, that must be supported by consultation that ensures that the impact of such measures is fully understood and that our actions do not create any unintended consequences, taking into account the views of everyone who has an interest.

With reference to amendments in the group, our consultation asks specific questions about possible exemptions for mid-market rent and build-to-rent properties. Alongside that, there are opportunities for landlords who do not see their circumstances reflected in the specific questions to give us their views, and for tenants to give us their opinions on how the proposals will impact on them. We will consider all those points as they are proposed in the consultation.

I turn to amendments 329, 330 and 331 in the name of Paul McLennan. Amendments 329 and 331 will have the effect of moving the power to define an exempt property in section 13 of the bill so that it appears in other legislation alongside the rent controls to which it relates. That flows from previously debated amendments that would replace the power to set a rent cap in section 9 of the bill with the provision for a rent cap in the other legislation. The relocation of the power would make obsolete the existing power to define what is an exempt property in section 13. Therefore, I support Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 107, which was debated earlier, because it would remove the resulting obsolete section of the bill.

Amendment 330 will make a technical correction to the bill to change part of the title for the new part 4A of the 2016 act from “excluded” to “exempt”.

I turn to other amendments in the group. Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 102, Edward Mountain’s amendment 150 and Willie Rennie’s amendment 329A would create a duty for Scottish ministers to define an exempt property by affirmative regulations. However, those regulations cannot be made without the approval of the Scottish Parliament, meaning that compliance with the duty would not be entirely in the gift of Scottish ministers. I agree that it is essential that exemptions are provided for, but imposing that as a duty on Scottish ministers is not the right way to progress that. Accordingly, I urge members not to press or move amendments 102, 150 and 329A but, if they do so, I urge members of the committee not to support the amendments.

I turn to Meghan Gallacher’s amendments 103, 105 and 106, Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 208 to 212 and 566, Mark Griffin’s amendments 411 and 416 and Willie Rennie’s amendments 329B to 329D and 329G to 329I. Collectively, the amendments set out potential exemptions from rent control in the bill, covering properties that are let by subsidiaries of landlords, including those delivering mid-market rental properties, build-to-rent properties, properties that are subject to improvements, including energy efficiency, and properties that have been offered for rent at below-market rates. Although I absolutely understand the reasons behind the amendments, I do not think that such properties should be included as exemptions in the bill. The reason for that approach is that exemptions must be fully informed by consultation with stakeholders so that they are framed in a way that ensures that they disapply rent control in the appropriate circumstances and do not capture circumstances in which rent control should apply.

Amendment 319 seeks to amend section 15 of the bill to provide definitions of the terms that are used in the amendments that I have described, and amendments 320 and 321 are consequential amendments, which seek to reflect the new arrangements for information requests that are made by the Scottish ministers.

Amendment 322 will provide the Scottish ministers with a power to modify section 15 to change the information that might be sought by a local authority or the Scottish ministers. That will provide flexibility to adapt the data that is collected to suit changing circumstances, should existing information no longer be necessary or should new information be required. Amendment 394 will subject those regulations to the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 323 seeks to allow for information sharing between local authorities and the Scottish ministers and between individual local authorities, and it clarifies the purpose for which information can be shared and seeks to minimise the number of requests that are made of landlords.

Amendments 324 and 325 seek to remove and replace sections 16 and 17, which currently provide enforcement mechanisms for a local authority when a landlord fails to comply with a request for information or knowingly provides false information in response to a request. The replacement sections that amendments 324 and 325 provide take account of the new powers to request information that are being conferred on the Scottish ministers.

Amendment 326 will provide the Scottish ministers with a power to request information that is held in a local authority’s landlord register to enable them to carry out their functions and to assist local authorities in carrying out their functions under part 1 of the bill. Contact information for landlords and letting agents will allow the Scottish ministers to collect the data that they will be allowed to collect under the amendments that the Government has lodged.

Amendment 328 will enable the Scottish ministers to use the data that is collected to conduct research, to publish statistics or to encourage others to do those things, and it will enable the processing of the information that is received from landlords so that anonymised statistics can be published. I hope that that will reassure Meghan Gallacher, Edward Mountain and Carol Mochan in respect of their amendments in relation to making data publicly available.

The collection of information from landlords is critical to the implementation of rent control. The Government’s amendments will strengthen the ability to collect the relevant information from landlords, thereby assisting local authorities in undertaking their assessments of conditions in relation to rent and in reaching a recommendation on whether rent control is appropriate.

On the other amendments in the group, amendments 3 to 6 and 8, in the name of Emma Roddick, would, alongside her consequential amendments 7 and 9 to 20, make it a duty for all landlords—of whom there are almost a quarter of a million—to provide all the information that is listed in section 15(2) of the bill

“within 28 days of being entered into the local authority’s landlord register,”

and

“thereafter at such frequency as the local authority may determine”.

The amendments would allow any local authority to request any further information and would remove the purpose for which such information can be requested, and they would place a significant administrative burden on local authorities and landlords to collect and provide data. They would also remove the discretion of local authorities to seek the data that they deem necessary in the context of the local circumstances in their area.

I appreciate where Maggie Chapman is coming from on the issue. I thank her for lodging the amendments to allow us to have the debate about how we can clearly set out what the rent cap is.

I go back to the points that I have already made about the importance of having something that takes other income into account, although I appreciate what Ms Chapman says about the likelihood of wages being the primary source of income for many renters. It is also important to have something that is understood by renters, landlords and investors. We need to be able to provide that insurance to all those interested parties. The clarity that the use of the CPI can provide is exceptionally important. I also believe that the CPI is the most appropriate method, for the reasons that I have set out.

I just wanted to make sure that I could get in before Meghan Gallacher finishes winding up.

I am unable to find in my weighty folder the specific date on which the consultation closes, but I think that it is in July—

In some ways, that depends on when stage 3 is. I have also heard very understandable calls from the sector for us to move through the bill process at pace. We are still in the early stages of stage 2, so you will forgive me if I do not try to estimate when we will complete the bill process. However, I am mindful of the need to look at how quickly we can get that done, and I give the reassurance that, regardless of how we are working with regard to stages 2 and 3, we will be working at the same time on the analysis, so that, as soon as the consultation closes, we will get the analysis done and the regulations drafted. Therefore, regardless of when the bill process is complete, we are working to get that done as soon as possible.

To return to my earlier point, taking account of the views of those with an interest to understand the impact of any measures is why our consultation has asked some specific questions about possible exemptions for mid-market rent and build-to-rent properties. We have also asked questions about landlords who charge rents below market rates and who make improvements to the property. There are also opportunities for landlords who do not see their circumstances reflected in the specific questions in the consultation to give their views and for tenants to give their opinions on how the proposals will impact them. To that end, amendment 302, in Paul McLennan’s name, sets out that the requirement in the bill on Scottish ministers to consult before laying regulations specifying properties that might be subject to a modified rent cap may be met by consultation carried out before the relevant section comes into force. That will support bringing forward any necessary regulations as soon as possible after the legislation comes into force, as I mentioned in my responses to the interventions.

Amendment 332, in Paul McLennan’s name, sets out the form of the rent cap. Providing a formula for the rent cap in the bill—the percentage change in the consumer prices index plus 1 percentage point, up to a maximum increase of 6 per cent—is an approach that will provide protection for tenants who are at the highest risk of the most significant rent increases. Setting a ceiling of 6 per cent can help to protect renters against large increases in rents at times when inflation spikes. Including a ceiling means that a greater share of the risk of future extreme economic events that cause a spike in inflation will lie with investors or landlords, who are arguably better placed than renters to cope with the impact that such events can have in the short term. However, the cap will also provide clarity for landlords and investors on rent increases in rent control areas.

CPI is a comprehensive measure of the trends in goods and services purchased by consumers in the United Kingdom economy. Costs relating to running a home are included in the index—for example, costs relating to maintaining a dwelling as well as the items within a dwelling. Linking the rent cap to CPI is, therefore, a reflection of the cost to landlords of offering a property for rent.

Allowing some margin over inflation, such as the 1 percentage point that we are proposing, will give investors some assurance that, over the long term, any periods in which growth is below inflation may be balanced out with periods in which rents may grow a little above inflation.

Through the housing investment task force, we have worked directly with investors and developers to understand how we can bring forward a system of rent control that both works for tenants and supports continued investment in private rented housing.

Thank you for your assistance, Mr Simpson. I am very keen to move expeditiously with the discussions in short order afterwards.