���˿���

You are talking about the private sector, not the public sector.

I am sorry—I have had some technical difficulties this morning.

I am grateful to colleagues for the opportunity to speak to my amendments. I am sorry that I am not with you in the room this morning and that I am having to join remotely. I am making a visit this morning as part of my responsibilities as the convener of my committee, and I wish to honour that commitment.

In speaking to my amendments 47 to 50, I first express my support for the bill and the measures to moderate rent levels in general, and I pay tribute to Living Rent and other campaigners, including those in my constituency, who have helped to get us to this point. I have been working collaboratively with them since 2016, because, unfortunately, the number of people who are paying too much rent has become a growing concern in my constituency, as it has in other areas. Often, there will be large increases in rent between tenancies, which is why I support the measures to address that in the bill. The market has not worked on its own, so intervention through regulation is clearly required. Too many landlords are charging too many tenants too much each month, and I believe that, for the benefit of all of society, that needs to change.

That said, it is really important to emphasise that there are, of course, lots of really well-motivated, generous landlords who, in my experience, generally care about their tenants’ wellbeing and want to do the right thing. I am grateful for the representations that I have received from landlords as well as tenants, and my amendments, therefore, relate to both parties. In my work as a constituency MSP, I have come across several cases of landlords charging tenants rents that are lower than they could charge. Some choose to charge less for a variety of—often benevolent—reasons. The tenant might be vulnerable, for example, or the landlord might have known the person for some time and know them to be a good tenant. We do not want the bill to disincentivise that sort of benevolent behaviour and generosity among landlords.

When the bill was proposed, a concern that I heard from the Scottish Association of Landlords and others was that rent controls might lead landlords with so-called under-rented properties, for which they charge less than they could charge, to feel it necessary to start raising their rents every year so that, when a tenancy ended, they would not be disadvantaged by the restrictions in the bill to control rent rises between tenancies. Although, as I have said, I agree with those restrictions in general, I therefore lodged amendment 49, which seeks to exempt properties from the control of rent rises between tenancies so that benevolent—often smaller—landlords who have underrented properties are not disincentivised to offer lower rents to, for example, vulnerable or reliable tenants.

However, I note that, as the cabinet secretary mentioned in her remarks, from 23 April until 18 July, the Scottish Government is consulting on exemptions, and I think that it would be better and wiser to await the conclusion of the consultation before putting into legislation an exemption such as the one that I am proposing. I would, though, welcome further reassurance from the cabinet secretary that the concept in my amendments will be considered by the Scottish Government in its consideration of exemptions.

Since I lodged my amendments, I have also reflected on the definition of the words “open market” in amendment 48 and on the idea that such a rent could be excessively costly for tenants. After engaging with Living Rent, I am mindful of the fact that the definition could make tenants vulnerable to having to pay inflated rents in constituencies such as mine.

For those reasons, I intend not to move my amendments. However, I continue to urge the Scottish Government, as part of its consultation, and the committee, as part of its consideration of exemptions in due course, to consider the matters that I have raised in relation to the implementation of the bill, assuming that it progresses and is passed by the Parliament at stage 3, as I hope it will be.

I am sorry—I have had some technical difficulties this morning.

I am grateful to colleagues for the opportunity to speak to my amendments. I am sorry that I am not with you in the room this morning and that I am having to join remotely. I am making a visit this morning as part of my responsibilities as the convener of my committee, and I wish to honour that commitment.

In speaking to my amendments 47 to 50, I first express my support for the bill and the measures to moderate rent levels in general, and I pay tribute to Living Rent and other campaigners, including those in my constituency, who have helped to get us to this point. I have been working collaboratively with them since 2016, because, unfortunately, the number of people who are paying too much rent has become a growing concern in my constituency, as it has in other areas. Often, there will be large increases in rent between tenancies, which is why I support the measures to address that in the bill. The market has not worked on its own, so intervention through regulation is clearly required. Too many landlords are charging too many tenants too much each month, and I believe that, for the benefit of all of society, that needs to change.

That said, it is really important to emphasise that there are, of course, lots of really well-motivated, generous landlords who, in my experience, generally care about their tenants’ wellbeing and want to do the right thing. I am grateful for the representations that I have received from landlords as well as tenants, and my amendments, therefore, relate to both parties. In my work as a constituency MSP, I have come across several cases of landlords charging tenants rents that are lower than they could charge. Some choose to charge less for a variety of—often benevolent—reasons. The tenant might be vulnerable, for example, or the landlord might have known the person for some time and know them to be a good tenant. We do not want the bill to disincentivise that sort of benevolent behaviour and generosity among landlords.

When the bill was proposed, a concern that I heard from the Scottish Association of Landlords and others was that rent controls might lead landlords with so-called underrented properties, for which they charge less than they could charge, to feel it necessary to start raising their rents every year so that, when a tenancy ended, they would not be disadvantaged by the restrictions in the bill to control rent rises between tenancies. Although, as I have said, I agree with those restrictions in general, I therefore lodged amendment 49, which seeks to exempt properties from the control of rent rises between tenancies so that benevolent—often smaller—landlords who have underrented properties are not disincentivised to offer lower rents to, for example, vulnerable or reliable tenants.

However, I note that, as the cabinet secretary mentioned in her remarks, from 23 April until 18 July, the Scottish Government is consulting on exemptions, and I think that it would be better and wiser to await the conclusion of the consultation before putting into legislation an exemption such as the one that I am proposing. I would, though, welcome further reassurance from the cabinet secretary that the concept in my amendments will be considered by the Scottish Government in its consideration of exemptions.

Since I lodged my amendments, I have also reflected on the definition of the words “open market” in amendment 48 and on the idea that such a rent could be excessively costly for tenants. After engaging with Living Rent, I am mindful of the fact that the definition could make tenants vulnerable to having to pay inflated rents in constituencies such as mine.

For those reasons, I intend not to move my amendments. However, I continue to urge the Scottish Government, as part of its consultation, and the committee, as part of its consideration of exemptions in due course, to consider the matters that I have raised in relation to the implementation of the bill, assuming that it progresses and is passed by the Parliament at stage 3, as I hope it will be.

Thank you, deputy convener. I just want to check that the committee can hear me okay.

I have a final few questions. You talked about shared services, which has been an area of particular focus for you, both in your previous ministerial brief and since you assumed your current one. It is interesting more widely, but it is particularly relevant to the committee. We have heard from SPCB-supported bodies that the co-location of services is working well where it happens—for example, in Bridgeside house, which, for clarity, is in my constituency.

A hub-and-spoke model is proposed by the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner. I do not know whether you heard his interesting evidence. He talked about how the centralisation of certain back-office functions, with the potential to group together commissioners that are alike, could be helpful. How does the Government approach shared services between public bodies? Earlier, you spoke about how you are trying to improve that—including in your determination to deliver a more efficient approach to public sector property management through, for example, a single Scottish estate programme. It would be good to hear an update on that programme, but also any reflections on, for example, the co-location of a number of the SPCB-supported bodies in Bridgeside house. That is working well, but could it happen for example in another building that is part of the Scottish Government estate, to save further public money?

I appreciate that it would be an upheaval if SPCB-supported bodies were to move their physical location, but it might save some money if they were to move elsewhere in the public sector estate. It was interesting that, last week, the Scottish Fiscal Commission clarified that, although it is located next to St Andrew’s house in the Scottish Government estate, it sees itself as very independent. That was quite a good example of a body’s location not impacting its independence.

Minister, is there anything that you want to emphasise to us that you have not had a chance to say yet?

Is there engagement with the SPCB itself, given its limited number of members?

It is helpful to get that clarity.

Minister, you kindly agreed to write to the committee to follow up on some of the points that Richard Leonard raised, and Ash Regan and I will consider how to follow up on her questions in relation to things that have been said in public in this committee and in others. We will engage in correspondence on that.

All that is left to do is to thank the minister and his officials for taking the time to be with us today. It has been a very helpful evidence-taking session, and it is great to hear wider emphasis on the need for collaboration between the Parliament and the Government in all this.

Thank you both.