Meeting of the Parliament 23 September 2025 [Draft]
I think that I have been clear on the strengths, as I see them, of CPI versus the other indicators that Maggie Chapman has proposed. One of the most important strengths is the frequency with which CPI is published and the fact that it reflects price increases up to very recently—the month before. It is well understood and it correlates with price pressures that not only tenants but landlords face. For all those reasons, I believe that it remains the appropriate measurement. It was also voted on at stage 2. For those reasons, I cannot support Maggie Chapman’s amendments 165, 167 to 169 and 171.
Amendment 170, which is also in Maggie Chapman’s name, would remove the provision that will prevent the rent cap from dropping below 0 per cent and remove the Scottish ministers’ power to substitute the percentage values in the rent cap. That would be replaced with a power for us to specify a lower percentage than that which is specified in the fixed formula, and to specify the circumstances in which that percentage should apply.
As it would mean that the percentage that was specified could be less than 0 per cent, amendment 170 would open up the possibility of rent decreases. As we have discussed, that is not the intention of rent controls, which are about stabilising rents that are rising too quickly.
Amendments 72 and 73, which are also in the name of Maggie Chapman, seek to extend the deadlines, from 21 to 30 days, for a tenant in a rent control area to notify a landlord that they consider a proposed rent increase to be in excess of the rent cap.
19:00At stage 2, members lodged amendments that sought to increase the amount of time that tenants would have to make a notification in those circumstances. The timescale set out in those amendments offers the best balance between protecting tenants and ensuring that there is clarity for all parties. Therefore, I am happy to support amendments 72 and 73.
I turn to amendments 281 and 282. The bill includes a power for the Scottish ministers to prescribe a fee to be charged when a tenant refers a proposed rent increase to a rent officer for a determination on whether the increase would be above the cap. Those amendments, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would remove the power for the Scottish ministers to prescribe such a fee for rent verification within a rent control area.
The inclusion of that power is intended to provide the Scottish ministers with the flexibility to prescribe a fee if, once the provisions are in operation, that becomes necessary to support their operation. The power is about facilitating that process. A similar power exists in the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 in relation to rent adjudication, although that has never been used.
I cannot support the amendments, but I hope that Ms Chapman will be reassured by that rationale and by the fact that similar powers have not been used.
Amendments 34 to 36 and 41 to 43 are in the name of Maggie Chapman. Several of those are substantially similar to amendments that were lodged at stage 2 and would not be required if my amendments 74 and 121 are agreed to.
Although Ms Chapman’s amendments would require a rent officer to issue an order for a landlord to pay compensation to a tenant where it is determined that a proposed rent increase is above the cap, the power that amendment 74 confers offers a more flexible approach that will allow for financial penalties and compensation to be provided for in cases where that might be appropriate and proportionate, following consultation with landlords and tenants.
I hope that my amendment 74 gathers support as a proportionate way of addressing much of what Maggie Chapman had been intending through her amendments.
Amendment 166, in the name of Edward Mountain, alters the rent cap formula from the consumer prices index plus one percentage point to CPI plus two percentage points.
We have discussed the CPI percentage a lot. The formulation of CPI plus one percentage point is in line with stakeholders in the sector have been calling for. Stakeholders, including the Scottish Property Federation and the Association for Rental Living, welcomed the clarity that we provided in our statement last October and the agreement that was reached at stage 2 in committee.
We set out at stage 2 that allowing some margin over inflation would give investors assurance. I still consider that to be the best approach, and that keeping the margin at 1 percentage point does what I have been seeking to do throughout: it balances proportionality and affordability. I cannot support those amendments.
Amendment 175, in the name of Edward Mountain, would remove the requirement that rent increase notices for private residential tenancies in rent control areas should set out the reasons for the proposed rent increase. That provision was inserted at stage 2.
As we made clear at stage 2, we believe that requiring all landlords of relevant tenancies in rent control areas to provide such information to tenants when increasing the rent is an unnecessary intrusion into the landlord’s privacy, with no obvious benefit to the tenant.
Although tenants in a rent control area can challenge a proposed rent increase on the basis that it does not comply with the cap, the reason for the rent increase ought not to be a factor. Such information would therefore not be helpful to the tenant; it would largely be irrelevant and have no bearing on the decision at the end of the day.
Mark Griffin’s amendment 280 is similar to a stage 2 amendment that would have changed the definition of “rent” for the purposes of rent increases in a rent control area. We have discussed the issue previously. That would exclude from the definition of rent any amounts payable to the landlord in respect of various utilities. The member knows that my principal concern is that that approach would take the cost of utilities outwith the protection that it would otherwise be afforded were that still within the definition of rent.
As such, I have significant concerns about amendment 280 and its potential to undermine tenant protections. I am sure that Mark Griffin would not want to pursue that. I cannot support his amendment and would ask him not to move it.
I urge members to support my amendments in the group, along with Maggie Chapman’s amendments 72 and 73, and Edward Mountain’s amendment 175, and to reject the other amendments in their names and the amendment in the name of Mark Griffin.